I've played games for 30 years and the rules get in the way more often than they don't. This isn't to say that sometimes the rules don't produce great story moments, but the juice takes a lot of squeeze sometimes.

> a people problem, not a system problem.
Your causality is backwards.

>>96713787
>muh 30 years

>>96713787
>Your causality is backwards.
Explain how.
A crunchy system can always zoom out. The GM can always handwave a situation for story purposes if the granular rules are not needed.
A rules light system can never go crunchy when needed.

It's like a high definition digital picture vs. low res:
You can always zoom out, but zooming in only works in high res.

>>96713819
>tfw you zoom out more and more and eventually play a rules lite game while still insist you're trve crvnch gamers

>>96713822
That doesn't really counter my statement that you can always go rules light in a crunchy system but you can never go crunchy with a rules light system.

that's just a weird assumption you think would happen when taking liberties I guess(??). Why do you have to be so weird about it?

>>96713766
> It's fine if you're getting into the hobby I guess
Well... try to get into the hobby first instead of creating clueless threads.

>>96713819
>>96713837
The issue, especially on this board, is there is a strong assumption that the GM is antagonistic or juvenile, and the rules exist to bludgeon them in to being less a cunt.
With an assumption of trust, and a group that tends towards spontaneity, rules lite games are wonderful.

File: images(12).jpg (26 KB, 568x540)

26 KB JPG

>>96713766
>I don't get tacos when nachos exist.
That's you, that's how dumb you sound.

>>96713766
One system is math, the other is roleplaying. Not hard to figure out, you just have autism.

File: IMG-20200514-WA0004.jpg (146 KB, 562x703)

146 KB JPG

Rules lite is dumb
Heres the thing. The virtue of a rules lite system is its flexibility and low overhead. It follows logically that the best ruleslite system is maximally flexible and has no overhead, and that exists and its called freeform.

If rules are a handicap, play without rules- without any rules. Im a seasoned GM, i dont need any written words to know how a game works. I do need them to organize and track large ammounts of data, which is when and why you go crunchy.

>>96713891
Why do you think a crunchy system forbids roleplaying? That's literally the whole point of the thread. I'm still having a lot of roleplay in crunchy systems. There's 4 hours sessions where we roll maybe one or two dice.
You might be very stupid if you think a crunchy system exlcudes roleplay.

>>96713869
I had to look those up because I'm not a la creature muttoid but to use your stupid analogy:

You can break up tacos into nachos and if everyone already brought tacos then you can do that instead of buying nachos seperately. But you can't glue nachos into a taco. So if you had to settle for only one then it's better to have tacos since it can serve two purposes if need be.

>>96713901
By that logic there's no such thing as "too many rules", which is a retarded conclusion. This should clue you in to the fact that your logic is faulty.

It actually does NOT follow logically that the best ruleslite is maximally flexible and has zero oversight because the virtue of a ruleslite system is that it better represents the tropes and of the genre fiction.

You also forget that freeform does not have a resolution mechanic while ruleslite does have one.

Lets look at an example of a pirates of the caribbean style rpg. Lets say a player wants to cut free a chandelier to have it fall on the admiral of the british navy.

In crunchy system you would have to consider attacks of opportunity, the character's running speed, acrobatics checks to vault over the rables and chairs of the ballroom and an attack roll against the AC of the rope holding up the chandellier. Then you need to look at the mass of the chandelier and the distance it falls to see how much damage it does.

So if any of these steps fail (maybe your running speed isn’t enough to even reach, or you don't have actions left over after dashing) then that stops being an option

AND the GM need to place the chandellier there in the first place.

In a ruleslite system the conversation could go instead:

>I want to spend a point a point of metacurrency to declare there's a chandellier i can drop on the admiral.
>so how do you go about dropping the chandelier? Do you shoot it out of the cieling with your pistol?
>I want to cut the rope holding it with my saber.
> alright, we'll make this a risky roll, lets say the rope is on the other side of the ballroom. make a parkour check and if you pass you gain 2 ticks towards the "defeat the admiral" clock, if you fail the admiral slashes you for 2 damage.

>>96713787
I played games for 35 years and I can say you're wrong. Often to people who say this aren't people who DM and often the guy who always wants to be the main character.

I am not saying rules light system are all trash, but you see a growing number of trash systems that are rules light pop up acting like less is more. I agree some system rules might need to be fixed or have been done better. As >>96713819 said. You can always take the rules you don't need. However if your system is basically a handful or races and classes and how they fight. Then why have it when you got like 20 system that have that plus crafting systems, traveling systems, and more. You got have something to make it worth it.

great thread
NOT

>>96713957
Shocking you have to follow the rules of the game rather than being able to do something cause it sounds really cool at the time. (Which your GM can still let you do if you are really able to. You just have to roll and all)

>>96713811
Hi Jon

>>96713963
> 35 years
> you always can
This 35 years of experience have started 5 minutes ago to make another clueless post in a spam thread with weak bait.

I never had fun with GURPs.

>>96713994
Really. That's the best you got in your 30 years of gaming. I have noobs think of shit better than that. You could do better than that now

>>96713766
Oh look, another DnDrone making a pointless thread to ramble about his own autism and Stockholm syndrome.

>>96713819
This seems reasonable, however 'zooming out' has effects on the difficulty of an action. If the GM waves his hand and says "yeah, you can do that", he's putting his finger on the scale to make it easier for a player, and that's going to cheapen the moment. I hate that, which is why I like rules lite stuff.

>>96714004
I don't have 30 years of gaming. The other anon have. Rules of TTRPGs, especially crunchy ones, are usually interconnected and rarely modular. It is a house of cards. Taking out the rule usually requires either complete handwaving or additional homebrewing. You would know. It is TTRPGs 101.

>>96713766
>"rules light" systems
>daggerheart
Not rules light.

File: 705.png (2.44 MB, 1440x810)

2.44 MB PNG

>>96713957
Faulty reasoning.

>By that logic there's no such thing as "too many rules"
If i said "more rules = better" you would be right, but I said no such thing. I said "rules that make managing large ammounts of data easier" are good. By that logic the perfect system handles infinite data with zero rules which is impossible, so the best system maximizes its data-to-rule ratio, while remaining playable.

>the virtue of a ruleslite system is that it better represents the tropes and of the genre fiction.
The same could be said for a rules-heavy system, more rules = higher fidelity. I assume you mean it does it with maximum flexibility and minimum complexity, but thats my original premise- its just bad freeform.

>freeform does not have a resolution mechanic while ruleslite does have one.
You forgot to justify why a resolution mechanic is good, so i dont care

>pirates
A really bad example. Consider that both systems exist to model and constrain possibility. One by describing "reality", and one by vibes. You've implied one is worse because it has more things to consider and more points of failure, but in both cases the ultimate chance is arbitrary. You also implied lite is faster and easier, but you know what is even faster, even easier and just as arbitrary? Freeform.

Its freeform all the way down

>>96713766
There isn't a "right answer." You're right: you can absolutely handwave and "zoom out" from a crunchy system and most GMs are comfortable doing so. Other anon is right that this can present more challenges than problems solved if the game has rules you don't feel comfortable hand-waving.

The simple reality is that different systems are better suited to different people, because people are different. I know we all want to explain why "my way is best!" But the caveat to that statement is "best for whom?" And the answer to that is never "everyone." Different people and tables are different.

Just find things you like, and keep looking because that's fun, too.

>>96714120
Is it AI-generated?

>>96713766
The job of system is to provide a meaningful framework to play, nothing more and nothing less. It's there to help you, the GM, turn players from bored and confused homunculi into invested human beings.
Which is to say, both bad crunchy and bad light systems are unfit to do. I prefer crunchier games and "wargame-lite" systems, but many crunchy systems delve into depths of autism unfathomable to anyone without way too deep and disturbing interest in Sonic mpreg. On the other hand, many "new school" rules light systems just default to "I dunno, ask your GM :)" approach with maybe a mechanic or two scattered somewhere to justify the price tag. In both cases, this renders the system unnecessary, crunchy because at some point GM crashes out and stops following multi-page tables, fluffy because the book was never a system to begin with, just a collection of mood-appropriate art.

TL;DR: When reading system ask yourself: "Is this book necessary for me to run a game?" If the answer is "not really", "might as well play Risus" or "I'd rather lobotomize myself with a brick than read another 2d6 tables", then it's a shit system.

>>96714148
>TL;DR: When reading system ask yourself: "Is this book necessary for me to run a game?"
You just contradicted this claim a paragraph ago with:
>It's there to help you, the GM, turn players from bored and confused homunculi into invested human beings.
Optional rules and supplements often get players, in particular, excited and invested in playing a game. How many fucking times have you had a D&D or Rifts player get excited as fuck to game because of a race/RCC or class/OCC found in some particular supplement?

Different people "turn from bored and confused homunculi into invested human beings" for different reasons.

>>96714161
It is funny how ITT people argue with a nogames-OP-bait in good faith just to get word salad of shizophrenia as a reply.

>>96714011
D&D is not rules light.

>>96714186
I'm not sure if that means you're having difficulty following my comment. But if so I get it: it's not even 8am. Have some coffee and try again.

>>96713837
>you can never go crunchy with a rules light system
Unironic skill issue. I’ve paused games before to figure out the terminal velocity of metal sinking through seawater. Not in any way supported by rules, but definitely crunchy as hell.

>>96714206
Sure. The reason every ttrpg from the 80s and 90s has an entire appendix of subsystems and rules is because the situations came up, at some point, and subsystems and rules for them were tacked on. GMs who want to are absolutely capable of adding those into their own games. When I want one? I usually just borrow from a game that has it already.

>>96714161
> How many fucking times have you had a D&D or Rifts player get excited as fuck to game because of a race/RCC or class/OCC found in some particular supplement?
Zero, because I played neither, but I did play both Shadowrun and Spirit of The Century, games on opposite sides of "crunch" and both had someone go "I really want to play this character concept". It's less about optional rules and more about fulfilling specific player's fantasy, which in crunchy games is achieved through mechanical means and in fluffy games - through narrative means.

>>96714197
It means you are spammer who have no odea what you realistically can answer to the text you don't understand.

>>96714223
>It's less about optional rules and more about fulfilling specific player's fantasy, which in crunchy games is achieved through mechanical means and in fluffy games - through narrative means.
Honestly it's about "what gets players excited." Which can be either of those and depends on the player.

>>96714231
Ah. Well, have that cup of coffee and try again, anon. Sorry you're having trouble following.

>>96714187
OK, and? You're still a retard who makes shitty threads about your assburgers.

>>96714143
No, jojo was animated in the 90s

File: 40_Years_A_Grog.jpg (30 KB, 627x381)

30 KB JPG

>>96713766
They're pretty bad for people getting into the hobby really. The lightness initially, when it was a new concept in the mid 2000s, relied on the 30 years in the hobby crowd like this fuckwit >>96713787
who already knew what they were doing or at least had specific ideas about what they wanted.
Its been long enough and therough enough marketing that rules lite became a cargo cult, the adherents and supporters don't have rpgs backgrounds and they don't even know they're making huge gaps and errors. It doesn't really matter, most of them aren't playing their rules lite games, they buy them and feel cool. Sa me format as most other rpgs, they're bubblegum for the mind more often than a game that gets played so really they skipped steps by cranking out consumables without needing to write rules.
>nothing you can't do with plain old d&d
same as it ever was, both people's ambitions are too low and their capacities inadequate for interesting things, but overall interesting things aren't required to sell generic power fantasy with whatever pallet swap is current year's thing.
>rules getting in the way of story
This is you fucking up though.

tl;dr you're wrong and so are they. Very few people play the ruleslite games but very few people play the tomes either. They're curios and identity purchases more than games to be played.

>>96714120
You literraly started with
>"rules lite is dumb"
That is your thesis, faggot

If few

rules = bad

then

good = more than a few rules

Your entire point is that people who play rules lite would be better off doing freeform instead. And you are wrong.

>"You forgot to specify why a resolution mecanic is good"
It wouldn't be an rpg without a resolution mechanic. All rules of an rpg, by nessesity, need to be built on top of a resolution mechanic

>"both models exist to model and constrain possibility(...)[freeform is faster and just as arbitrary]"
Again, you forget the while *game* aspect of roleplay *game*. There is an element of desition making involved that isn't present in freeform, because in freeform everything is under direct control of the participants, while dice can give unexpected outcomes that make you think on the spot. Sure, you can do "freeform with coinflips" or whatever, but then you're no longer doing freeform and are just playing a very lite rpg.

Rules heavy games typically have a single optimal choice for any situation but rules lite have more of a spectrum of choices. A resolution mechanic, even if lite, means that sucess and failiure feel more meaningful than full on freeform. This is so foundational and basic to the entire concept of rpgs that I assumed you had the minimal brainpower to know it, forgive my ignorance, I won't demand so much of you in the future.

>"in both cases the ultimate chace is arbitrary"
There's a world of difference between trying to do the trope thing and having a 75 to 50% chance of it just working outright compared to all the complexities involved if you were trying to do it in, say GURPS and you had a good 5% chance of it working. Maybe you *do* want a game where doing the chandelier thing instead of shooting the admiral in the face is the wrong choice, nothing wrong with that, but it's incincere to pretend there is no value of rules-lite.

>>96713787
>thtory

>>96714266
You sound upset.

>>96714186
Perfect example why /tg/ is getting more and more dead with each year.

File: 20181221_134014.jpg (322 KB, 900x690)

322 KB JPG

>>96714598
i see you're struggling with this
>rules-lite is dumb
this is true
>more rules are better
this is true
>ruleslite is dumb BECAUSE more rules are better
hallucination, you have assumed a causative relationship i never implied. if you reread both my posts you will see both of them say "I need rules to manage large ammounts of data".
here ill even quote myself both times -
>>96713901
>i dont need any written words to know how a game works. I do need them to organize and track large ammounts of data
>>96714120
>the best system maximizes its data-to-rule ratio, while remaining playable

the problem with you is you dont understand argumentation, so you're lashing out at whatever the first thing i said is and trying to construct an argument around it to tear down instead of reading the second sentence where i already blew you the fuck out. The argument you're having right now is entirely imaginary. but lets keep going anyway

>>96714598
>It wouldn't be an rpg without a resolution mechanic
incorrect, freeform RPGs are RPGs. its literally in the name

>randomness
ah, so you subjectively like randomness. ill remind you that all three cases are arbitrary, so just set the DC as a percentage as you would in any other system and apply literally any method of randomization to see if you hit that percentage. you can split hairs over whether its still freeform if you like, i dont particularly care if the two words "apply randomness" qualify as a "system" or not.

>freeform has options
no? simpler rules generally have simpler emergent properties. if your game only has three stats the optimization is trivial - complexity breeds diversity. but this whole complaint is just an assertion based on vibes, i can pretty much just say "no they arent actually" instead of arguing.

>There's a difference
there isnt, its arbitrary. i can give you 70% in GURPS or in kids on bikes, and i will because im setting the DC by thinking "what are the odds this will work" in both cases

>>96713924
Holy shit, the autism.

>>96715493
Freeform rpgs, even diceless ones like nobilis (which doesn’t have randomness), have a resolution mechanic. Forged in the dark systems are pretty freeform but they still have a resolution mechanic. This is different from "just freeform" roleplay without any rules, like you'd find in some roleplay forums, the quest board and whatnot, which is not an rpg, it's just collaborative writing.

Your "data to rule" ratio theory doesn’t fucking do squat argue rules-lite are worse than rules-heavy games because if you have a game that requires you to track very little data, why the fuck would you *not* use a rules-lite system? There's no point in going crunchy if your game in practice only cares about 2 or 3 numbers.

If anything, the more logical conclusion out of this premise is that your should use as few rules as possible, to improuve this rules-to-data ratio. This would naturally favour rules-lite games and not rules-heavy games, except for campaigns where you specifically need to track all the little things.

>just ignore the rules and set the DC to whatever you feel is appropriate
There's a number of reasons why this is bad:
-if the players and/or GM learned the correct rules and those get sidestepped it turns learning those rules into a waste of time.
-if the player did not anticipate rules getting sidestepped this can lead to a feeling that the GM is nerfing them for no reason or handing them an easy win out of pitty.
-there can be an element of dissonance when rules are ignored on a whim. Things that were maybe easy or hard to a character can become the opposite for no reason, which has a chance to impact immersion. To be fair, this is also true of badly designed rules that are followed, but arbitrarily setting DC's tends to amplify the problem.

Rules-lite sidesteps all of these issues. Are there downsides? Sure, but that doesn't automatically make them worse.

Honestly, if you are ignoring all the crunch you're not playing rules-heavy anyway.

Any system can be as lite or crunchy as a GM or table wants. Whether it's because it's baked into the rules, a supplement, hacked into it, or whatever. Some people love and embrace the "everything has a rule" crunch, others want the flexibility of making it up as they go because they don't want to play Dungeons & Spreadsheets. Taster's choice.

>>96713787
You're a retard

>>96713766
all games should strive towards being rules light.
They should have a clear idea what their purpose is, what they want to show and how they want to show it. The rules should reflect this and only this.
This means a core of rules are applied in at least 95% of all situations with context-specific additions added on top in a way that makes sense and is intuitive in play. How rules handle resolving player actions is a good litmus test.
New unrelated rule subsystems are either not used at all or used very sparingly.
Needless to say the rules need to be properly playtested and thought has to be put into the balance.

Bad rules use bespoke solutions for every subsystem in the game with little or no cohesion on consistency. These rules often have a ton of crap crammed into them that rarely make sense and add a ton of complexity for no gain.

>>96713766
The main way I've seen rules get in the way is simply from things being time-consuming. Crunchy systems which have more rules frequently take more time to resolve basically everything.
The only time you actually need rules is if you have argumentative players that don't want to rely on a GM's judgement calls, or a hostile GM whose judgement calls make the game worse. At which point the advantage here >>96713819 ceases to be an advantage because handwaving just results in the same problem.

It's sort of the difference between a garage full of tools and an industrial workshop. The latter might have more tools and the precision to cut a block of wood down to the millimeter, but they've also got an overseer and a schedule and you need to wait for whatever you want to use.
Meanwhile, heading to your garage, eyeballing, and chopping through something with a table saw is going to be quicker if you don't need that level of precision.
And because we're playing games and not assembling a load-bearing structure, that level of precision isn't needed. Unless, again, you have argumentative players or a hostile GM who treat the game as something hyper-competitive, at which point I'd question whether that's a healthy group to play with.

tl;dr Rules Light systems are for people functional enough to not argue over every minute detail

>>96713766
Actually my system can do far more than any crunchy system, with no house rules or rulings, and no downsides.

>>96713819
Here's the trick : It's never needed.

>>96713901
Not at all.

>>96713915
If you're not rolling dice you're not using your system, so you just supported the opposite position.

>>96713924
And rules light systems can do everything crunchy systems can and more. Thanks for agreeing.

I don't like rules lite systems because they all have boring or outright bad combat.

>>96713924
>I know you wanted nachos, but I didn't want to bother, so I just smashed up a bunch of tacos, it's totally the same thing!

>>96713787
>>96713963
I've ran games for 40 years and I can say you're wrong. Rules light systems are superior to crunchy system because they don't force a strict means of engaging with the game.

>>96715861
>Honestly, if you are ignoring all the crunch you're not playing rules-heavy anyway.
So rules light systems are trash because I can just play any way I want so long as I have a rules heavy system. Got it, thanks anon!

Holy fucking shit this thread is concentrated autism. Some people like one kind of game; other people like another kind of game. Trying to "prove" that you're kind of game is objectively correct is a fucking fools errand. Of course, I'm just pissing into a sea of piss here, this being the site of "you don't actually like [x] you only *think* you like [x]," but what does any of this conversation actually accomplish? I prefer games on the lighter side because I'm more interested in running the world and seeing what the players do than strict simulationist fidelity and/or things like big, mechanically dense set-piece combats. That doesn't mean I think that simulationist fidelity and mechanically dense set-piece combats are somehow an invalid form or that how my table plays is somehow superior, it's literally just a matter of taste.

>>96716987
>I prefer games on the lighter side because I'm more interested in running the world and seeing what the players do
Translation: I dislike having extensive rules that the players can actually interact with because it impinges upon my authority as the GM.

>>96716987
I think it's obvious at this point that OP is either trolling or retarded.

>>96717120
I don't see how him stating a commonly held opinion is trolling or retarded.

>>96717141
>him
>commonly held opinion

I'm only replying because this is so pathetic it's actually mildly funny.

>>96717180
No, you're replying because you're mad.
>Durr samefag
You can just say you disagree with the opinion and leave the thread if you want instead of embarrassing yourself by pretending nobody on earth is capable of disagreeing with you save out of ignorance or malice.

>>96717216
>he keeps replying
Okay now i'm curious.

>>96717216
Ignore the ruleslite fag, he will seethe at you for days if you engage with him

>>96717261
>he's still at it

>>96717227
Ignore the crunchtard, he will seethe at you for days if you engage with him

>>96717054
No, actually it means "I prefer games on the lighter side because I'm more interested in running the world and seeing what the players do".

>>96717288
>No, actually
Rules help more with running the world and giving the players things to do and ways to interact with it that aren't "mother may I".

>>96717299
Nope, sorry. You lose.

>>96717299
Every game is "mother-may-I." It doesn't matter how dense your rules are, ultimately the GM is the arbiter of those rules. They determine when and what you roll, what the challenges are, and how the world reacts to the players. This kind of thinking feels of the idea that a more complicated ruleset will somehow "protect" the players from a bad GM. That has never worked, and I'm sorry you've been hurt, but we're still ultimately arguing about an aesthetic choice that isn't worth arguing about, because at the end of the day it just comes out to both sides going "nuh-uh, you're stupid!" Over and over again.

File: kerfur with concerning tattoo.png (1.83 MB, 1064x2048)

1.83 MB PNG

Crunchy versus lite doesn't concern me in the way it seems the thread is concerned. I'm fine with people being forced to stick to what their character is good at and not make up abilities on the fly. As someone who has done a lot of freeform RP, keeping some kind of grounding is really important.

What I take issue with is, I guess, crunch in character building. Where too much granularity actually prevents me from making a viable version of what I want to play. Where every kind of play style conceivable has it's own sub class, prestige class, feat line, and entire list of sub mechanics. Except this one thing, and it doesn't have to be particularly noteworthy. It's just a random hole in the rules, or doing it just sucks because the thing it does isn't important in how the rules play out in practice. These days I'm fine if I want to be a moon princess super saiyan angel half demon pizza man. If I want to be a gremlin really good with an axe, suddenly I'm in trouble. And regretfully, my experience dictates most people will get weird about the idea of reskinning something else and just keeping the mechanics.

In truth, all I really need is a small subset of ratings that dictate what I can *do* in a real sense of end results. How I get there doesn't need rules granularity. I just need to know I have an attack rating of '5' and range of '3' and defense of '2' and if I need ammo or not. Maybe a note if they have x or y trait if they have some specific behavior profile for niche situations.

>>96714206
Right but wouldn't you have been happier if the game rules already had that ready for you so you didn't have to do the work of finding and figuring it out on your own?

>>96714040
>. If the GM waves his hand and says "yeah, you can do that", he's putting his finger on the scale to make it easier for a player, and that's going to cheapen the moment. I hate that, which is why I like rules lite stuff.

This sentiment doesn't make sense to me, how is the GM not also putting the finger on scale the whole time during a ruleslite game then?

>>96717660
No, I wouldn't have.

>>96717679
Simply because rules lite systems already cover every conceivable action and interaction. By removing granularity, a system is made more comprehensive. Not less.

>>96717660
Not that anon, but there is absolutely NO WAY any system is going to cover every specific use you need. There's a note up thread about people that can go rules light are already trained by rules heavy systems to know what to expect and and need, but there's a dread eventuality behind being thrust in to this. You may as well accept you're going to get used to it. On the fly.

>>96716833
It's literally the other way around though.

>>96717694
On the contrary, my lite system covers everything.

>>96717712
It isn't, of course.

>>96716579
>The only time you actually need rules is if you have argumentative players that don't want to rely on a GM's judgement calls, or a hostile GM whose judgement calls make the game worse.

I disagree, rules are a useful tool to make sure everyone knows how the world your character's are inhabiting works and is consistent. A good faith player and a good faith player can still run into an issue where the player expects their action do one thing but the GM thinks it would do/cause the other. A rule in this case means both parties have already agreed on an action in game is done and what the results of it are so there can be no confusion and everyone has the same expectations.

>>96714595
>>rules getting in the way of story
>This is you fucking up though.
Yeah imagine what the rest of the sentence you didn't quote means, fuckwit.

>>96713957
>By that logic there's no such thing as "too many rules", which is a retarded conclusion.

Well no, there's a physical limitation on rules. I can make a game with 0 or approaching 0 rules, I can't make a game with infinite rules or approaching infinite rules. Having more rules doesn't make the game worse unless those rules themselves are worse, how ever there's a functional limit to how many rules a game can have.

>>96717714
I think you mean it's fine if things reduce down to
>What is your stat in x?
>Okay roll and if it's over Y you succeed
in most cases. Which is how something like that would actually work. Which is fine. We don't need a 30 minute math class every time anything weird happens.

>>96716795
>man, I really like driving up to the mountains and taking a hike there. I really like having a car
<HURR DURR YOU'RE WALKING AND NOT USING YOUR CAR WHEN YOUR'RE HIKING SO YOU'RE ACKSHUALLY AGAINST CARS!!!

lol 4channers are so smart

>>96717765
Who are you quoting?

File: disneyland.gif (2.83 MB, 412x464)

2.83 MB GIF

>>96713924
This anon is the winner of the thread. Everyone else is just getting in the way of this post.

>>96713766
I get you, if I'm playing a roleplaying game I want to engage in the "game" part of the system. You can roleplay in anything really.

>>96717795
Do not reply to yourself.

>>96717796
Right, that's why rules lite is better.

>>96717737
>he keeps fucking up
lmao

>>96717120
It's both.

>>96713766
I don't need rules to play pretend.

Yes you do.

>>96713766
>itt
>faggots that can't do math complain that being able to do math and talk to other people are mutually exclusive
Never change /tg/. never change.

>>96716765
Really? And what system is that? Why didn't you enlighten us to your perfect system immediately?

>>96719414
Prowlers and Paragons.

>>96719417
>Prowlers and Paragons
Sell me on it. The store page has nothing but buzz words and I'm not spending 30$ for a .pdf I don't even know is worth it.

>>96719441
Why would I want to sell you on it? I don't work for them, I don't care if you play it.

File: 1637117806933.png (691 KB, 970x954)

691 KB PNG

>>96715861
>freeform is not an rpg, it's just collaborative writing.
My guy, its collaborative writing all the way down. You can agree to ten rules or ten-thousand, we're still just delegating roles in the writing room.

>why the fuck would you *not* use a rules-lite system?
Great question. A human brain remembers what, 8 numbers in a row before it craps out? Lets say im einstien and can do 16
Well i have four goblins with four health bars, four discreet positions in a cluttered room with fixed movement speeds, four different sets of weaponry, and i want to model how their shields and gear break or get disarmed over the course of the fight, and each one carries a different number of coins.
This is already too much to track before the PCs even show up, so add rules to handle data. Add some tokens and a grid map for positions and speeds, a handful of weapon rules and ranges, some difficult terrain modifiers and suddenly i can run the same encounter with 20+ goblins no problem.
I want subjectively to have a certain ammount of resolving power when gming- a level of persistent detail to give the game tangibility. Thats why complexity is desireable. If you dont need that then play freeform as i originally said.
>use as few rules as possible
Yes, i said that in all three of my posts so far. As few rules as possible for the detail you need. My argument is that ruleslite systems dont handle enough data to justify existing at all

>set the DC to whatever you feel is appropriate
You've got it backwards, im guessing you've never GMed. If it exists, its there because i placed it with intent. If there is a chandelier its there by design and i already know if you can probably swing on it or not. So i set the DC during the week when i drew the map because i know your acrobatics modifier in advance. Im not skipping the rules, im using them exactly as written. You will swing on the chandelier exactly 7/10 times in any system you care to name because thats what i want to happen

>>96719484
They obviously do handle enough data, of course.

>>96716193
You made a mistake by not specifying the complexity and variability of "core resolution mechanic + context specific modifiers". I can write you 200 pages of just that and since i never added another seperate rule you will have defined it as rules lite

>>96719499
Swing and a miss.

>>96717720
>good faith player and a good faith player can still run into an issue where the player expects their action do one thing but the GM thinks it would do/cause the other.
If they're both acting in good faith though, then it's very easy to state the intent behind the action, discuss why it should/shouldn't work, and then resolve it.
Hence why stricter rules only become necessary in the context of bad-faith GM or players, because rather than quickly clearing up any confusion when there's a gap in the rules, it bogs down the game with an argument. More crunch simply reduces the number of gaps.

>>96719516
Of course, implicit in between "discuss why it should or shouldn't work" and "resolve it", is "actually come to an agreement on whether or not it will work". Which is not guaranteed to happen, and is what a rule system is for. So why not dispense with the game-stopping discussion that has no positive effects and skip straight to playing the game?

>>96719516
And "fail to come to an agreement" is not the result of bad faith. Good faith players can also fail to come to an agreement. People can have sincere disagreements about what is possible in an imaginary world, and there is no reason to think that either of them must actually be wrong, or to prefer one interpretation to another. This, again, is the purpose of the rules.

File: images.jpeg-176.jpg (46 KB, 462x663)

46 KB JPG

>>96719491
Man you've done these weak inflammatory stabs at every single reply in the thread trying to get someone mad enough to argue with you. Im here to discuss system design, you really think i cant spot the pattern of "no u"? Id ignore you like the last three times you did this but i feel some people need me to point it out to them.

Take note guys. Hes just trying to start and argument and hes not even particularly good at it. You can just ignore any post itt with less than three sentences and have a perfectly nice time

>>96719569
It's exactly as inflammatory as "they don't handle enough data" with zero supporting evidence, examples, or reasoning, as in your post, so if I'm trolling, so are you. Support your position or discard it. Final warning.

>>96713766
A system should be as complex as it needs to be to achieve what it sets out to do and not an iota more. In the vast majority of cases """crunchy""" systems are full of needless complexity that midwits confuse with depth.

>>96719445
You're the one that claimed it's the best around.
Tell us how it is.

>>96719611
If you want a review my rates start at 500 USD / hr. Otherwise fuck off.

>>96719620
Then don't claim it's the perfect system if you refuse to extol its virtues. You can't expect anyone to just accept it as perfect if you don't show them how.

I don't care if you accept it or not. Your lack of taste isn't my problem. And I'll do whatever I damn well please.

File: 20230716_231318.jpg (86 KB, 915x960)

86 KB JPG

Its so easy to not take bait. You just dont click on the reply and dont type anything. Its the easiest thing you could ever do, and yet here you are not doing it

Indeed, I should stop responding to the guy demanding work for free.

>>96719646
But you've given us nothing to taste?
How can I have shit taste when there's nothing but the picture on the menu?

>>96719649
I'm not baiting him. I'm trying to get him to justify why that system's supposedly perfect.

I don't have to justify anything. You're not my boss.

File: 1692388748628919.jpg (73 KB, 511x412)

73 KB JPG

>>96719662
>I'm not baiting him
That much is obvious

>>96719499
>the complexity and variability
depends on the tone and intended aesthetic of the game. The rules need to accommodate that and nothing else.
"I want to have rules for everything" is bad game design.

>>96717606
>Every game is "mother-may-I." It doesn't matter how dense your rules are, ultimately the GM is the arbiter of those rules.
the truth that rulefags choose to ignore

>>96719484
>collaborative writing all the way down
Reductio ad adsurdum. This is as pointless and meaningless as saying motorsports is "spinning wheels all the way down" and that therefore all racing should be done on foot or not at all.

Like
>>96719491
>>96719569
Pointed out, you are just saying shit, refusing to back it up and shifting the burden of proof. When you're not doing that you're just doing some motte-and-bailey type shit or changing definitions to retroactively fit your argument. For example, you are now defining "rules light" as not "a system the uses few rules" or even "as few rules as possible" (which is the layman definition) but as "not enough rules"

So your statement

"Rules light systems don't have enough rules"

Means

"Games without enough rules don't have enough rules"

Which is circular logic.

Really ironic of you to accuse others of not understanding argumentation.

I'm not gonna reply anymore. You are not as smart as you try to sound. You sound like someone who was a "gifted kid" in school and floundered afterwards.

>>96720668
I want to reiterate, I don't think rules-dense or simulationist games are bad. But it's ultimately an aesthetic choice about what you enjoy, and the entire exercise of trying to convince someone of one side or the other is pointless. But I especially hate the "mother-may-I" argument, because it inevitably makes so many bad faith assumptions about gaming.

>>96720578
... what is the point you're trying to refute? I never said more = better in that post. I said your definition was stupid, so im not sure what you're talking about

File: Screenshot_20251010_17014(...).jpg (323 KB, 1080x709)

323 KB JPG

>>96720699
Boy do i have a suprise for you

>>96720699
>motorsports is spinning wheels
It is. Whoever's wheels spin fastest for longest wins, thats the entire concept. The rest of your analogy is equally nonsense. Car races have nothing in common with the performance of RPG systems, its honestly mind boggling that you would even compare them.


>Rules light systems don't have enough rules
If i had said that even once you might have a point. But notice how you didnt and cant quote me saying it? Thats because i never did. Congratulations on finding a logical fallacy in something i only said in your own imagination? You're still trying to pick holes in things you've assumed ive said instead of anything ive actually written in a post.

Here, ill give you one last chance
>rules i dont need shouldnt exist
>ruleslite games are so simple That i dont need rules at all, so i might as well just do freeform
>complex rules let me handle complex scenes that are impossible in freeform, so those rules should exist
Its that simple, and its been the exact same the whole time

Maybe freeform players just arent intelligent enough for complex systems...

>>96713766
"Rules-light" is the domain of experimentation. If you're an experienced DM, and you've decided to try making your own system, then rules-light is a great starting point. It tests your ability to make rulings on the fly, and forces you to innovate. It's also a way to gauge just how much crunch you actually need.

I like wargames and I like being able to plan tactics and strategies. I also like to roleplay. Combining these requires crunch.

>>96719569
>Take note guys.
Noble but futile, fa/tg/uys would rather poke their eyes out than NOT feed a troll. See>>96719662 who's trying to get a troll to justify his position.

>>96713766
More people than not are interested in games as a social medium, a proxy for subjects and a buffer for personality, and use them as a means to an end, that end being interacting socially with other people. It turns out, most people want interaction, but suck at it. This is why people binge the latest show, talk about sports they themselves haven't played in over 20 years, engage in celebrity gossip and talk about the weather, they don't have the particular talent some people do to make any subject interesting.
Rules light systems are there to supply those people with a subject, a framework where dice roll produce interactions that they aren't entirely responsible for, and that command attention from others involved. They aren't interested in the outcome of the game as much as they are interested in using it to break the ice, which is why these games usually lack as much content as crunchier games (despite the quantity of content available not necessarily having anything do with how hard it is to play the game as long as you don't need to interact with the entire content in one go).
You don't get them because you want to play games, and probably can communicate just fine.

>>96713766
There's a balance to be struck IMO. A lot of the one-page rules are just improv prompts for theater kids. It's not a fun way for people that enjoy more challenging entertainment.
On the other end is Phoenix Command with all the crunch and charts you would ever want but then it just keeps going. When it takes 6 hours to resolve a round of combat...
I routinely play Traveller which is a moderately complex game. It feels right to me. Cyberpunk 2020 is a great use of heavy crunch and many a good time has been had with it.
On the other end of the spectrum, Cairn, Black Star, and Neurocity are fairly lightweight rules but do a lot of heavy lifting. These systems will definitely work of a lengthy campaign. ICRPG is fairly light too and it's great for lighter mood game while still having a lot of teeth.
In the end, complexity is only one aspect of game design. If you have a crunchy game that runs smooth, it's way more preferential than a rules lite game that is a mess. There's also lite games that will handle real depth of game experience too if handled correctly.

>>96721417
>On the other end is Phoenix Command with all the crunch and charts you would ever want but then it just keeps going. When it takes 6 hours to resolve a round of combat...
Skill issue.

>>96721421
I bet you thing that North African Campaign is great for an evening's casual board gaming too.

>>96721427
I'm mostly busting your balls. I can say anecdotally that PC only takes that long when you're using primarily digital media. It's always gone way faster for me when I've got it in paper or book marked out so you can just jump around to what's needed.

I could probably resolve a reasonably sized combat in two or three hours.

>>96721437
I was also being hyperbolic with the 6 hours thing too.
The fact remains though that resolving combat with Phoenix Command is more complex than most RPGs and more work than a lot of people want to do for their entertainment. It's a niche with in a niche.
I have used it the core rules for a skirmish game for a while and it was great for that. I think it deserves more love than it gets.

>>96721437
Two or three hours is fucking embarrassing

>>96721263
Sorry you have terrible taste, I win btw

>>96721373
>You don't get them because you want to play games, and probably can communicate just fine.
Nice.

>>96713766
You are a dumb incel faggot doomed to die working minimum wage at a grocery store, go back to video games and mtg

>>96721373
lol you're so insecure

>>96713819
>Bro, you can just IGNORE the rules and make things up in crunchy systems! That's why they're good!
>What, make things up for non-crunchy systems? No no no no, that doesn't count what the fuck are you talking about?
Also, If your answer to making a rule good is "ignore it," it's not a good rule, you dipshit hypocrite. The fact that you got so many replied and I'm the first one to point this out is proving /tg/'s general lowering of IQ averages.

>>96721373
Self-aggrandizing nonsense. You enjoy games played with others for the same reason as every other human being. It's programmed into your DNA as a social animal. Games have countless ways to express those interactions and you enjoy some of them more than others, just like every other unique human on planet Earth. Your motivations are the exact same as everyone else, expressed along slightly different avenues because of your nature, nuture, and given mood at any moment, being slightly different from that of other human animals.

>>96722667
For real.

>>96713957
reddit spacing

>>96716864
try 13th age

Rules light bores and annoys me. I can not stand the inconsistency in outcome these kinds of games generate. These games also tend to have really high demands of the GM and break down easily along the social dynamics of those around the table.

They are easy to get into though.

>>96722667
>>96722836
>andtheyhatedhimforhespokethetruth.jpg
Found the anons who don't want to play games and can't communicate irl.

>>96722925
>I'm special!
You're a buffoon. You're like everyone else, and play games for the same reason as every other human animal. You, too, enjoy them for socialization.

You're just self-aggrandizing.

>>96713787
>>96713963
>>96716944
I've run tabletop games for 55 years, and I can say you're all wrong, rules heavy systems are good because you get to do lots of math, my favorite thing to do.

I've tried playing GURPS with different groups and every time the game transformed into hellishly long sequences where people attempted to do shit like pick the lock or break something according to RAW, even meeting a new character was somehow a mechanical nightmare due to reaction rolls and shit. doing trivial things took hours of irl time. Fuck that shit, I'm choosing narrative systems any day

File: mirth.jpg (65 KB, 745x579)

65 KB JPG

>>96722937
>everyone who sees my bullshit is the same person

>>96722968
>Lost an argument
>Resort to insults and "you must be angry!"
Nice one, anon ;-)

>>96719527
>So why not dispense with the game-stopping discussion that has no positive effects and skip straight to playing the game?
Because you aren't "skipping" to playing. You are instead cross-referencing books or frontloading the time spent learning. And as I pointed out, it doesn't even fully solve the problem, because you can still run into situations the rules don't cover.

>>96719534
>This, again, is the purpose of the rules.
Which was my initial point, where the main purpose of excess rules is to keep the people who will endlessly argue in check by minimizing the opportunities they have to complain.
There's a reason I used "argumentative" rather than "bad faith" in my initial post, because the problem is when a discussion becomes an argument and people dig in their heels and refuse to back down. I don't consider that particularly "good faith", because everyone is supposed to be there to have fun playing a game.
It doesn't matter if the argument is sincere if you're still being argumentative and grinding the game to a halt.

>>96722925
Yep, found you.

>>96722895
haven't played any good systems then. They're not inconsistent.

>>96723432
No, not at all. You didn't understand the post.

>>96723432
You didn't say argumentative, you said bad faith. And it doesn't change anything I said anyway.

>>96725302
good job finding yourself

>>96722978
nou

>>96725438
Yep, found you.

>>96725619
I think the best part is knowing who you think this is and knowing its not them.

>>96720699
So are you going to back anything up, or nah? I guess everybody but you has to actually put in effort?

>>96725682
It is them, of course.

>>96726499
Nice try fishfag.

Thanks for confirming it.

>>96713915
Because they need be able to do what they want without needing the item or skill and needing to roll high enough for it. They want to play pretend but call it the same as people following the rules of the game and only doing what the stats and skills allow.

File: 1683717663381776.jpg (58 KB, 554x554)

58 KB JPG

>>96722967
But lockpicking is literally just a single skill roll. Why would you come onto the internet and tell lies like that?

>>96725339
>You didn't say argumentative, you said bad faith.
I said argumentative here >>96716579 which was my initial post. I only brought up bad faith after the reply to that post mentioned good faith.

The problematic behavior is being argumentative. I don't care about whether that's the result of bad faith or not.
And what you've said reaffirms my initial point. That the purpose of rules-heavy systems is to keep argumentative players in check.

>>96729339
No, the purpose of rules, any rules, heavy or light, is to provide a shared frame of reference to help players and GM understand how the world works and to assist in developing a set of reasonable expectations and intuitions about the game. Well meaning players who are not argumentative can have sincere disagreements about what is reasonable in an imaginary world, and it isn't problematic or bad faith.

>>96713924
There is literally one country on earth so third world an adult living there would never have heard of a "nacho" before a random thread on /tg/.
Good evening saar.

>>96717742
>Having more rules doesn't make the game worse unless those rules themselves are worse, how ever there's a functional limit to how many rules a game can have.
This breaks it down into a probability issue: the more rules you have, the more likely it is one of those rules is a stinker that ruins a game.

>>96717660
No. Figuring those things out was enjoyable, and there’s every probability that theoretical rules that the game could have had would have been unsatisfactory.

And that’s beside the point. The original claim was
>you can never go crunchy with a rules light system
You can. And if you want to claim that it doesn’t count because it amounts to making up your own crunch instead of using the system’s rules, then I posit that just ignoring the rules of a crunchy system also doesn’t count as “going rules light” with it because it likewise amounts to not using the system.

>>96713766
Which situation do you imagine can't be resolved by a light system?

>>96730960
>who are not argumentative
Then they won't have a problem with a rules-light game, because they'll be able to move on with the game without a disagreement devolving into an argument.
Someone disagreeing isn't the problem. Someone bogging down the game by continuously arguing over something is the problem.

That's the point. That you only need more rules to establish a more rigid framework if not having those things results in frequent arguments due to who you're playing with.
I'm not sure what else you would call the problematic behavior of grinding the game to a halt by arguing other than being argumentative.

>>96731632
That's false. You can disagree and have an argument without being an argumentative person.

>>96731659
If it happens frequently, and the argument goes on for long periods, stopping the game in the process, then that's an argumentative person.

You can drink beer without driving drunk or being an alcoholic, but those behaviors are still a problem. You get it?

>>96729239
Not hardly.

>>96731683
But it doesn't need to. It could be the case that the players only have to stop the game once during the whole adventure to come to an agreement about a game element, and they can do so without being argumentative. If we can prevent that one single argument, we should. That's why rules light is good, it can cover everything, and far more efficiently than rules heavy.

>>96719516
>If they're both acting in good faith though, then it's very easy to state the intent behind the action, discuss why it should/shouldn't work, and then resolve it.

Right but this is still an obstacle that you have to work around that could have been avoided if there was already a rule in place. And it can become a larger issue if a player had done other actions that then relied on this action that's under discussion, if the it doesn't work out the way the player thought it would than mean the whole sequence of actions could be wasted or result in an outcome that the character never would have intended do to a meta-issue and not an in character issue.

>>96731725
And, again, just because they're both acting in good faith, doesn't mean they can resolve it. There are gameplay elements about which there is no reason to prefer one interpretation to another.

>>96731725
You're theorizing a game with rules so complete that blue moon situations will never come up and interpretation is only possible in a single way. Such a game doesn't exist. "And they never had a single argument because the rules were so complete as to cover every single scenario ever and there was zero ambiguity," is a fairy tale.

>>96731724
>That's why rules light is good, it can cover everything, and far more efficiently than rules heavy.
That's exactly what I've been saying. Rules light is more efficient, and so long as disagreements are rare enough with the people at the table that they're happening once per campaign and can be resolved quickly without bogging the session down, then that overall efficiency easily outweighs a one-off disagreement.
If those disagreements devolve into drawn out arguments and occur frequently, then the people at that table probably would benefit from a rules-heavy game in order to avoid getting bogged down with their numerous arguments.

>>96731730
>doesn't mean they can resolve it
If they are so firmly entrenched in their views that they cannot resolve it, to the degree that neither is willing to concede even for the sake of continuing the game everyone else at the table wants to play, then that would fall under what I've been calling argumentative.

>>96731797
No, not entrenched. Entrenched has nothing to do with it. Stop making assumptions about the players to suit your position.

>>96731797
And again, no, that's not what argumentative means. The players argue without being argumentative.

>>96731724
>If we can prevent that one single argument, we should.
Why is avoiding one argument in and of itself considered to be a moral imperative? Through argument, debate, and conflict, we can arrive at new perspectives that we might not have otherwise considered. If anything, I’d take the stance that, if there would only be a single argument, that’s an argument that SHOULD happen.

Argumentativeness is a problem when it impedes function, but argument has value in moderation. And, if you don’t believe that, I question why you frequent this website of all places.

>>96731823
No moral imperative, only goals. If we assume that playing the game is good, since the players signed up to play the game, and not to not play the game, then playing the game is one of their goals. If they're not playing the game, they're not achieving that goal. As game designers, our responsibility is to the customers. If we can prevent a problem that results in the players not playing the game, we should.

If there exists a game where arguing is part of the game and is one of the goals of the game, then the game should facilitate arguments. In a game where that isn't the case, it shouldn't.

>>96731837
And again, I'm operating under the assumption from earlier in the conversation that this hypothetical argument is caused by some rules ambiguity. Therefore it can be prevented by writing clear rules. If the argument is a result of something that can't be prevented by writing better rules, then it's not the responsibility of the designer, and out of the scope of the discussion.

>>96731806
>>96731802
>that's not what argumentative means
That's what I've been calling this behavior of a person who argues frequently and for long periods, for lack of a better term. You're free to suggest a better term to use, but the term used doesn't change the type of behavior I'm talking about.


If, for whatever reason, they cannot resolve it, to the degree that neither is willing to concede even for the sake of continuing the game everyone else at the table wants to play, then that is the problematic behavior I'm referring to.

>>96717694
>Not that anon, but there is absolutely NO WAY any system is going to cover every specific use you need.

Something not covering everything you need doesn't meaning something can't cover more of what you need or that doing so is bad.

>>96731473
>No. Figuring those things out was enjoyable, and there’s every probability that theoretical rules that the game could have had would have been unsatisfactory.

Okay but you understand that most people looking to play a game, not make one? And therefore not having the make the game as you play what be preferrable?

>>96731418
>This breaks it down into a probability issue: the more rules you have, the more likely it is one of those rules is a stinker that ruins a game.

But whether or not a rule is going to be bad isn't a random chance and you can simply remove rules from the system if they are bad. Having a rules heavy system doesn't mean your group has to use every rule.

>>96731768
At no point have I or anyone seriously claimed you can have a rules heavy system cover everything, however something not fixing an issue 100% of the time does not mean you may as well not fix the issue.

>>96731797
>to the degree that neither is willing to concede

The fact that someone "has to concede" in the first place is an issue.

>>96731876
>, to the degree that neither is willing to concede even for the sake of continuing the game everyone else at the table wants to play

The fact someone has to concede on how the game works because both parties didn't start from a point mutual understanding before the game starts is the issue anon. That's no resolving the fact that two people have a disconnect during the game it's juet brushing it aside.

>>96731991
You're missing the point. You're saying "the more rules we have, the less arguments we have." I'm telling you that's flawed thinking.

Again, the reason to play a rules dense game is because you and your table enjoy interact with rules dense systems. That's fine. Stop trying to "prove" that more rules are better, objectively. It's fucking stupid.

>>96732004
>>96732022
>That's no resolving the fact that two people have a disconnect during the game it's juet brushing it aside.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. Rules-light works fine if you're playing with people who are capable of brushing things aside, or are otherwise already on the same page with the people you're playing with.

If that isn't the case, then you need a crunchier system in order to enforce those concessions prior to the campaign even beginning. But like you said, in that context, you already had the problem of people at the table not having mutual understanding before the game begins, which is then further compounded if they're incapable of moving past it during play if they don't have a strict ruleset.

>both parties didn't start from a point mutual understanding before the game starts is the issue
That's been my point from the very start, where rules-heavy games are useful in the context where you already have those underlying issues and problems at the table. But if you don't have those underlying problems, then it's just extra work for no benefit.

>>96713766
It's a spectrum.
No one seriously plays F.A.T.A.L because, even if the tone and setting was the best in the world, it's overcomplicated and jank as shit with unnecessary mechanical bloat.

Same way no one seriously plays Car Lesbians, or Honey Heist, games where you only have two stats to a PC (Car & Hotness, and Honey & Bear iirc), because using the same thing for everything is boring.

To spell it out for the autists in the back, people find systems that are quick and fluid enough to meet their standards, but contain enough crunch and mechanics relating to the situations they expect to see in the setting of the game they intent to run, to meet their desires.
You want to run fantasy? DnD/Pathfinder/BRP.
You want Scifi? SWN, Alien RPG, Lancer.
Modern horror fantasy? CoC, VtM, HtR, MtA.

>>96731724
>That's why rules light is good, it can cover everything
How does that follow at all? Rules lite almost explicitly by definition cannot cover everything, since doing so would add a ton of rules. How many rules lite systems have exact rules for how much dirt you can move while digging, or the durability of a structure or door.

>>96732077
And that's what you don't understand. You're starting from the assumption that a rules light game necessarily covers fewer possibilities than rules heavy. That's false.

>>96732077
>Rules-light works fine if you're playing with people who are capable of brushing things aside, or are otherwise already on the same page with the people you're playing with.

Some one being able to concede/brush something aside isn't a positive outcome tho, that player is missing out on something that they thought would happen in favor of something else someone thought would happen.

You seem to be under the assumption that because it can be played expediently, which isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that I wanted my character to do something, expecting that I would be able to and then told I cannot. It doesn't matter if I'm fine with conceding whenever this happens because the problem is it happening in the first place.

>That's been my point from the very start, where rules-heavy games are useful in the context where you already have those underlying issues and problems at the table.

People coming into a game without established rules with different understandings of how things are going to play out isn't an issue only experienced at some tables, it's the default for human interaction anon.

>>96732176
No, rules light by definition can very easily cover far more than heavy. Both of your provided examples are covered by light systems, for instance.

>>96732211
How are they covered?
"The GM makes a ruling on the spot" isn't a valid answer. Give me a specific rule from a specific system that gives those rulings.

>>96732220
No problem. A door (if made of wood) has a structure of 4d. When digging a hole, ordinary soil in most places will have a structure ranging from 1d for loose sand, up to 3 or 4d for hard clay, to 6d to 10d for solid rock, depending on type.

Every 1 net success against a structure roll allows you to make a small hole, so a normal person with Might 3d and a shovel can expect to reliably move a few shovelfuls of sand or soil per page. To dig through clay, he'd probably need to upgrade to a pickaxe, and solid rock might require other methods.

If we need exact amounts (we don't), we can just use the Weight table. A weight rank of 1d is 50 lbs, so for every 1 net success, we can excavate 50 lbs of soil.

>>96732060
>You're missing the point. You're saying "the more rules we have, the less arguments we have." I'm telling you that's flawed thinking.

No whether or not argents occur has never been the issue. Whether or not arguments occur is dependent on the players and not the system. I'm saying the more rules we have, the more people can play the game the way they wanted to/though the game worked from the outset.

Like say if I want my character to cast magic spell, if there are no rules establishing what are the limits of my character's magic or what specific magic he can do, than you're going to keep running into situations where your idea of your character's limits and other's ideas of your limits are different.

Like if I want to cast fireball, how is it decided how big of a fireball I can cast? 10ft diameter? 50? 200?

If it's a simple rules lite system where I just roll an improvised value, than how is it kept consistent? If it's not kept consistent, I'm not going to rely on it as an ability for my character to do since I have no idea how hard it is going to be for me to make the kind of fireball I want to make.

>>96732259
Anon this doesn't sound like a rules lite system at all if it has different rules to handle excavating different types of material.

>>96732287
Is that your definition of rules light / heavy? Whether there are rules for digging? I doubt it. Why don't you try being sincere in your posts from this point?

>>96732259
So under whatever system you chose, if I decided I wanted to dig a few pitfalls in advance of an ambush; I'm having to stop and roll a bunch of dice, hope I get enough successes to even dig a sufficient amount per test and ultimately discuss with the GM how many total successes are required to dig enough holes (of which the GM has to guess how much is actually excavated using the weight of the soil).

How is this more efficient than GURPS, which just tells me a guy with 10 strength can move 20 cubic feet of soil per hour of labor?

>>96732310
No, if you want to dig a pitfall, you can just spend a point of Resolve on a Power Stunt for Ensnare with the Trap pro. No rolls required until the opposition actually interact with the trap.

>>96732316
Okay sure, but how is that more efficient than "You can move this much dirt per hour"? Because now it looks like we're in the territory of spending meta resources and requiring specific character options just to dig a hole with some spikes in it.

>>96732335
So what?

>>96729285
Only in these situations GM has to go look up tables for lock types, door durability and whatnot. Most of the stuff in gurps is literally just a single roll that comes with a baggage. Don't be retarded.

>>96732335
Are you going to acknowledge that the rules light system met your requirements, or are you going to keep being insincere and moving the goalposts?

>>96732336
>>96732345
Sounds like your Rules Lite system requires more overhead on the player's part and is a hell of a lot more restrictive if you ever try to think outside the box.

>>96732350
No, it doesn't sound like that at all, actually. Why don't you stop lying and acknowledge that it met your requirements?

>>96732290
>Whether there are rules for digging? I doubt it. Why don't you try being sincere in your posts from this point?

Anon that can't possibly be what you got from my post lol, I'm not the one being insincere.

If a game has rules to cover very rare actions that don't typically come up during play like digging, unless you're playing a game focused on digging, it would seem more likely than not that a system that goes out of the way to cover extremely unlikely actions would cover many unlikely actions rather than just the example your provided.

>>96732364
How would you know whether digging typically comes up in a game you've never even played?

>>96732364
And that's exactly the point. You think it has rules specifically for digging. Because you can't imagine an actually elegant system.

>>96732342
But that's wrong, if you're using basic set no you don't. Lockpicking is still just a single skill roll with modifiers determined by the GM, if you're optionally using low-tech and specifically want more tactile stuff then yeah you have to reference a table to find out what bonus you get on lockpicking. I will concede forced entry does require you to look up door HP to determine the ST if you want to kick it in (or just beat it down).

>>96732272
>No, no, you don't understand, my aesthetic choice is objectively correct, because [repeats self again].

You're retarded.

>>96732351
Okay, I'll make sure to have enough metapoints and take the hole digger class if I ever want to do something outside the box anon.

>>96732397
Okay, and I'll keep playing the game I was talking about, where neither of those are required to dig holes. Let me know when you're ready to stop acting like a child because you lost an argument.

>>96732272
You're acting like "rules like=zero rules," which is just as stupid as saying "rules heavy = Phoenix Command." When I'm running a game, my players trust me to run the game in a fair way. When another GM runs a game for me, I give them the same benefit of the doubt. In my games, I'm more interested in the choices the players make and how they decide to navigate the world, and I want a ruleset that has exactly enough rules to facilitate that and no more. I've never seen a grenade scatter dice table or a super granular car crash damage table add anything to a game. I'm gonna all caps this because you're having a hard time with it:

IF YOU ENJOY THOSE SYSTEMS, THAT IS FINE AND GOOD. IF THOSE ADD TO YOUR TABLE I AM HAPPY FOR YOU AND I AM GLAD YOU ARE HAVING FUN. BUT YOU LIKE THOSE SYSTEMS BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR TABLE ENJOY ENGAGING WITH THOSE SYSTEMS. THIS IS AN AESTHETIC CHOICE, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT OBJECTIVELY CORRECT, AND ARGUING ABOUT IT IS A FOOLS ERRAND.

>>96732207
>that player is missing out on something that they thought would happen in favor of something else someone thought would happen.
That's the case with any game that involves multiple people. What are you even trying to say here?
>it's the default for human interaction anon.
And another default of human interaction is the ability to move past disagreements, rather than blowing something up into a big argument.

>The issue at hand is that I wanted my character to do something, expecting that I would be able to and then told I cannot.
And if this happens frequently to you, then it's the example I was talking about, where a table with people who cannot agree or a hostile GM does benefit from a rules-heavy game, where any such concessions are done in advance, rather than in the midst of a game.
>It doesn't matter if I'm fine with conceding
It matters a lot actually, because it's the difference between everyone accepting the results and continuing to play the game, or starting an argument and no longer playing the game.

All of this was to answer OP's question as to the purpose of rules-light games, and this is all pointing towards the answer. It's less work for the people who are capable of resolving things getting bogged down by arguments.
I'm not trying to claim that rules-heavy games are useless or that rules-light games are superior. If the people you play with need that structure in order to avoid arguments, then that's a good thing that you're able to find a game that works for you.

>>96732383
That's kinda my point. GURPS can be played in a (relatively) streamlined way. But all groups I've played with were turbo autistic about rules and insisted on using extended rules for all kinds of shit. And I guess it's just the type of crowd that's attracted to GURPS.

>>96732470
I would argue then if that autistic they'd probably know the rules or pages off hand, but then again some autists don't even put in that legwork so I can't speak for your experience.

>>96732316
So there's more rules involved to do actions in your "rules-lite" system than a "rules-heavy" system like gurps?

>>96732478
No, there aren't, and that wouldn't make it rules heavy even if it was the case.

I told you to stop being dishonest. I won't warn you again.

>>96732372
>How would you know whether digging typically comes up in a game you've never even played?

Does digging come up a lot in your games anon? How much of your adventures do you spend digging?

>>96732378
Anon if part of your game says x does x, you need x to do x, rolling x means you can do x, etc. that's a rule.

>>96732486
Some of them it's quite important, and in others it isn't, just like for any other activity that can be imagined.

Why did you word your post in such a way as to imply that you think it isn't reasonable for games to involve digging? Why do you continue to argue in a dishonest manner?

File: 1760159712500727.jpg (683 KB, 1920x2716)

683 KB JPG

>>96732486
All the time, my character spends at least 6 hours a day digging.

>>96732492
I can't help but notice that you continue to refuse to provide a definition of rules light and rules heavy. Why is that?

File: truth and justice chart.png (109 KB, 1097x784)

109 KB PNG

>>96732272
>Like if I want to cast fireball, how is it decided how big of a fireball I can cast? 10ft diameter? 50? 200?
For a basic example of how a rules-lite would handle this, I give you this chart from Truth & Justice, which is a pretty simple superhero game.
Rolls are resolved via 2d6, plus a modifier based on the rank of a skill or power. So if you've got a Good (+2) Fire blast, then you can cover a pretty massive area, though the 2d6+2 roll will determine how easy it is to dodge or what you manage to destroy with it.

It's not the most precise, but it also doesn't need to be, since it achieves the goal of giving a ballpark estimate for people to agree on in a way that doesn't require detailed rules for hundreds of magical spells.

>>96732272
Why do you think a light system couldn't possibly have rules for this? Explain your reasoning in detail, and be specific.

>>96732464
>That's the case with any game that involves multiple people. What are you even trying to say here?

Not if that case already has a pre-existing rule anon.

> rather than blowing something up into a big argument

Again, the argument is irrelevant. Whether or not rules exist arguments can and will happen depending on the players.

>And if this happens frequently to you, then it's the example I was talking about, where a table with people who cannot agree or a hostile GM does benefit from a rules-heavy game, where any such concessions are done in advance, rather than in the midst of a game.

A concession happening in midst of game while you're trying to do something rather than before is always worse even if no argument occurs.

>It matters a lot actually, because it's the difference between everyone accepting the results and continuing to play the game

Being forced to change your conception of what you're able to do while in the midst of playing is still a negative outcome even if no argument occurs.

>All of this was to answer OP's question as to the purpose of rules-light games, and this is all pointing towards the answer. It's less work for the people who are capable of resolving things getting bogged down by arguments.

A player having to change their idea of what game their playing in the midst of playing, while it can be expedient, does not resolve the issue anon.

>I'm not trying to claim that rules-heavy games are useless or that rules-light games are superior. If the people you play with need that structure in order to avoid arguments

Avoiding arguments isn't the issue anon, I don't know how many times it bears repeating but a rules-heavy game does not prevent arguments any more than rules lite system does. Argumentativeness is entirely up to the players

>>96732483
>No, there aren't, and that wouldn't make it rules heavy even if it was the case.

>describes more rules unique rules to do an action
>but doesn't have more rules

>no a rules lite system having more rules than rules heavy system doesn't make it not rules lite

Oh okay you're just retarded, thanks for playing anon

>>96732543
Yes, because the rules I described aren't specific only to that action. In other words, the light system covers more possible situations with fewer rules. You know, basic game design. Thanks for playing.

>>96732493
>Why did you word your post in such a way as to imply that you think it isn't reasonable for games to involve digging?

I didn't, in fact I specifically said "unless you're playing a digging focused game"

>why do you continue to argue in a dishonest matter

Anon you're the one making up actual lies here

>>96732553
But a game doesn't have to be digging focused for there to be a lot of digging. If the players decide they want to dig lots of holes, then there will be a lot of digging.

Which specific thing did I say that was false? Be specific. Of course, you're being dishonest again, so you won't be able to.

>>96732499
Because it's self evident anon and me having to do so would just be me essentially implying you're retarded but I guess if you really need one.

Rules lite games are games with few stated rules. As in rules lite = light on rules

Rules heavy games are games with many stated rules. As in rules heavy = heavy on rules

>>96732568
Okay, how do we tell if a game is light on rules? What are the criteria?

>>96732524
>So if you've got a Good (+2) Fire blast, then you can cover a pretty massive area

Okay and how much is massive? To me that sounds like 100-200ft but to someone else it could be 20-50ft or even 1,000-2,000.

>>96732568
Did you seriously just present a tautology as a definition without a hint of self awareness? LOL

>>96732529
Because having rules for it inherently makes it rules heavy anon.

>>96732582
Why?

>>96732559
>But a game doesn't have to be digging focused for there to be a lot of digging

I would hope a game that contains a lot of something is focused on it. Why would you use a system that doesn't focus on digging to do a lot of digging?

>>96732589
A good game shouldn't have to focus on a single very narrow and specific activity to support it.

>>96732569
It's a relative comparison anon. Much like how things can be "light" or "heavy" without needing specific criteria.

I'm not interested in explaining to you preschool concepts of language anon. So I'm just going to accept your concession before you ask me to continue explain the concept of adjectives.

>>96732600
How do you know if a system is light?

>>96732552
>the light system covers more possible situations with fewer rules
Does it? Because earlier when we were just digging holes you had to roll whatever number of dice and get whatever number of successes to get whatever size hole (exact size being very vague), but when we needed to specifically build a pitfall trap we now need to use a completely separate action/maneuver/skill, burn a meta point and it functions on an entirely different time scale than the other example given; and then of course the attack roll for when the enemies bumble into it.

So we're using two different sets of rules to do functionally the exact same thing. I'm not sure I see how that's more elegant.

>>96732580
No I used "self evident" to mean "obvious" like how you the fact you're just responding in bad faith now is self-evident.

>>96732602
Yes, it does. Of course there's more than one way to represent an action. That's what makes the system excellent. You can choose whatever method works best for your group.

>>96732535
>Not if that case already has a pre-existing rule anon.
The player is still missing out on something if the rules say they can't do it. They've merely conceded in advance.
>Being forced to change your conception of what you're able to do while in the midst of playing is still a negative outcome
People finding compromises and not getting upset is a positive outcome anon. The issue is not that underlying disagreements exist, but how the players behave in response. As you said, argumentativeness is entirely up to the players.
If they decide to be more argumentative, then a rules-lite game won't work for them if they're unwilling to concede in the midst of a game, because that results in an argument and bogging the game down. A rules-heavy game reduces this by having the players make concessions to pre-existing rules in advance.

Is it really so difficult to accept that not everyone thinks the same way you do about handling disagreements in the middle of a game, when your entire argument hinges on the idea that people having sincere disagreements is entirely normal?

>>96732597
>A good game shouldn't have to focus on a single very narrow and specific activity to support it.

No but a game that can support many things with many rules as well as game that focus on those actions would have to be a rules heavy one.

>>96732605
Nope, it's not obvious, and you're responding in bad faith. Provide a real definition or concede that you don't have one.

>>96732575
>Okay and how much is massive?
I posted a picture with that post for a reason anon. Good (+2) aligns to a football field, or 6,400 square yards.

>>96732615
No it wouldn't. A game can support these activities without rules specifically about them, as I just provided examples of above.

>>96732607
Why does the book need two separate rules to do the same thing then? Especially when they have completely different levels of granularity and bogging down the table. Seems pretty superfluous to me to have two ways to do the exact same action in the same book.

>>96732608
>The player is still missing out on something if the rules say they can't do it. They've merely conceded in advance

Yes but it's much better to be able to say before you're playing a game "no I don't want to play this game" rather than discover that in the midst of playing.

>People finding compromises and not getting upset is a positive outcome anon.

Relative to getting upset and not finding one sure. But an ever better outcome is never needing a compromise in the first place.

>Is it really so difficult to accept that not everyone thinks the same way you do about handling disagreements in the middle of a game, when your entire argument hinges on the idea that people having sincere disagreements is entirely normal?

I accept that you think differently then me anon, you can enjoy doing something even if it has issues, but you can't pretend those issues don't exist.

>If they decide to be more argumentative, then a rules-lite game won't work for them if they're unwilling to concede in the midst of a game, because that results in an argument and bogging the game down. A rules-heavy game reduces this by having the players make concessions to pre-existing rules in advance.

If someone is an argumentative person they will find reasons to argue anon, whether or not they have some or a lot of common ground with the person they're arguing against.

>>96732663
Where did I say "need"? Why do you think those rules are only for that action? I never indicated that in my post. Why don't you stop making up things I never said?

>>96732670
Because the qualification is your "elegant" system can do more with less. Which is clearly not the case, either the rules aren't covered at all and the GM needs to make an arbitration (bending semi-relevant rules and doing a bunch of guess work) or we end up with two different ways to do the exact same thing; in which case we've crossed into being more cumbersome than significantly heavier systems especially if the GM chooses a different resolution mechanic the next time it comes up.

>>96732622
If you're suggesting taking the table at face value you're suggesting that I can create a football sized fireball that only has the same energy of a bonfire which seems contradictory. I assumed based on this that the correct interpretation is a bonfire that is "massive".

>>96732693
No, not either those things. The rules cover those actions without being specifically about them, and no GM arbitration or bending is required.

>>96732664
>you can't pretend those issues don't exist.
I disagree that they're issues at all, actually. Because again, I think people finding a compromise rather than arguing is a positive outcome, while you listed it as a negative one.
It'd be more ideal if a compromise wasn't necessary, but the world doesn't always work that way. Even a rules-heavy system requires that you either compromise in the first place or you simply don't play.

>If someone is an argumentative person
I'm talking about the specific behavior of being unwilling or unable to concede or compromise in the midst of a game. That is the issue that a rules-heavy game addresses.

>>96732693
You didn't answer my question. Why did you lie about what I said?

>>96732627
Anon your example used like 3 rules interactions for a single action and even described how it would function differently if the material wasn't soil. That's a lot of rules

>>96732703
That is the issue that a rules-light game addresses.

>>96732710
And since you haven't provided any definitions or criteria, I can, just like you, claim that it's not a lot of rules, with no supporting argument.

>>96732697
>no GM arbitration or bending is required.
But the digging a hole example already does require GM arbitration. As the size of a hole isn't exact and the only exact measurement we get is weight of material moved; which is going to vastly vary depending on how dense the material is or how waterlogged it is. At some point he's just gonna have to guess or otherwise wave his hand and say "Okay, you've dug enough dirt to trap a man"

>>96732727
No arbitration at all, actually.

>>96732731
>It's not true because I say it isn't
Okay anon, whatever you say.

>>96732737
Yes, whatever I say. You haven't held yourself to any sort of standard of civil behavior during the discussion, so neither will I. If you're ready to stop behaving like a child, then maybe we can actually discover the truth of the matter. Until then, stay furious and continue to hold incorrect beliefs.

File: 1759777006766840.jpg (55 KB, 500x500)

55 KB JPG

>>96732746

>>96732752
Thanks for showing your hand, enjoy your ban.

>>96732754
Imagine being this mad you lost an argument.

>>96732762
Indeed, I'd have to imagine being you. I'll pass.

>>96732696
>I assumed based on this that the correct interpretation is a bonfire that is "massive".
Correct. Roughly the intensity of a bonfire, but across a wider area.

But this sort of table should demonstrate that rules-lite isn't the same as not having rules. You can still have tables which set shared assumptions prior to the game beginning.
It doesn't need to be this specific table, since it's designed superheroes and the system is geared to be less-lethal by default, but it's mostly to serve as an example.

>>96732272
The Area Pro allows a Power to affect a radius from 10 to 50 feet, chosen by the user each time the power is used. Expansive permits a radius up to about 5,000 feet.

>see thread that's has hundreds of posts in just a couple days
>instantly know that it'll all be back and forth bickering
Why is this board like this now?

>>96733325
Because most of the fun, good folk we used to have got on with life and moved on years ago, so most of who we have left are the ornery grumps and arseholes who can start an argument in an empty room.

>>96733325
Sorry you lost the argument, samefag.

>>96713766
God this thread is so fucking stupid it isn't about whether rules-lite or heavy crunch. What matters is if the rules aren't obtrusive and confusing. People don't mind rules that aid play, and too much rules bogs the fucking game down, numbers too.
Its about having the right amount of
>"can the average wageslave compartmentalize this?"
It doesn't fucking matter how much rules there are, if you're rules are shit nobody wants to play. Sometimes people don't want to spend all their fucking energy into number cruching, sometimes they do. That's why different systems exist. It's insane that ANY of you fucking retards think there is a one-size fits all for that. Different shit exists for different reasons. You can bitch all you want but that isn't gonna make people play any of either. It's all preference and you know that's the truth. God this thread is ragebait shit.

>>96713766
Your hot shit takes on what kinds of systems people you don't play with enjoy or not are a "people problem". I play RPGs to relax and have a good time, not to solve needlessly convoluted math exercises. Yet another waste of a thread.

>>96713766
I like Cthulhu Dark. Wouldn't play it all the time, but for a rule light system for quick horror games it works really well. Like some other anons, I also find that too many rules can get in the way in certain settings.

rules light better last post :)