Should you play a Rules Heavy or Rules Light RPG?

[@atinybard6594]

Rules heavy games: All the answers are on your character sheet. Rules light games: None of the answers are on your character sheet.

[@WhatisTableTop]

@@atinybard6594 🤯🤯🤯

[@heyimbilliejean]

This is exactly backwards. The most common criticism of rules heavy games is that you can’t fit everything on your sheet and have to go look things up.

[@urbaneblobfish]

So, that’s not true at all lol

[@urbaneblobfish]

@@heyimbilliejeanExactly.

[@TheGladGolem]

@@atinybard6594 This EXACTLY right. The answers to what to do and how to resolve it in rules light games live in the middle ground between the fiction, player ingenuity and gm fiat, not codified in the rules or as abstract “buttons” on your sheet. Crunchy games are full of button noted on your sheet. What can I do? Action Surge, a ludic concept that has no equivalent in reality nor does it exist as anything other than something a fighter can use to do more in a turn, a button to press at the right time. Right there in your sheet.

[@ianmaluk1]

Whenever you're introducing someone new to TTRPGs, you always want to start with rules light games. But even with vets, they may not always want to play either light or heavy rule systems all the time. That's why always best to balance games with people who you know what they'll enjoy and always help bare in mind for others.

[@yurisei6732]

Hard disagree. In rules-lite systems, the focus of the game is pretty much entirely on the roleplaying. You remove some of the pressure to know the rules, but in exchange you take away anything for players who are less confident roleplaying to hide behind. With a heavier game, a player who is yet to get into the flow of roleplaying can still play the game by using the actions that the game rules inherently let them take regardless of roleplaying quality.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

Dnd 5e is a good intro game cause while you could play around with a bunch of things you can hide behind "I attack"

[@GodOfMoxie]

Some of the most creative and best improve I have had in my campaigns has been with extremly heavy rules game.

[@WhatisTableTop]

@@GodOfMoxie that’s awesome! Which games are you playing? - Charles

[@GodOfMoxie]

@@WhatisTableTop ACKS 2e - adventurer conquer kings. It does such a good job simulating a world the player are free to engage in completely hair brain schemes and the system will have a good way to resolve it, from bank heists to naval battles, a fleshed out economy also helps ground it.

[@dane3038]

Same. I've got heavy experience with both ( BECMI and GURPS mostly ) and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know WTF they're talking about. Sure you can do "the thing" in the rules light game, maybe, if you want to stop the action and have that conversation with the GM. Or you can play the crunchy game and take the the feats, advantages or whatever to do "the thing" and just do it. And then you start seeing combinations and opportunities that you never would have thought of that present themselves in the moment that makes the whole table excited. You cannot play a one shot of a crunchy RPG and know what the game is really like. You have to commit to it and go deep. That's how we know that people who talk against crunchy games are full of it. If you don't like crunchy games then chances are very high you've never played them enough to know anything about them. Full stop.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

I've been working on making a game and it's a rules heavy game. One of the main reasons for that is that I really like hard magic systems so even with a lot of different ways to cast spells (base spell with multiple spell modifiers) they're all detailed out. I've seen people say rules heavy games are harder to be creative with but in the game I'm making if you aren’t creative it can actually hurt your character. There's a title system that can turn your character's personality, philosophy, and aesthetic into actual mechanical abilities. Do you yell insults as you attack someone? Are your fireballs shaped like birds? Those simple descriptions can come to define a character giving new abilities and shaping your soul Honestly I'd be interested in seeing people try and "break" my game with min-maxing. The game is designed to where characters may be different levels at similar power cause they've spent the same amount of experience

[@KristerPersson]

Great discussion! I'm bouncing between rules light and rules heavy games. Learning a ton of rules can be straining but if they are logical and consistent, it's generally a one-off thing. Rules light games tend to give me creative fatigue after a while, but they are faster to learn.

[@DarknessProphet]

My favourite rules light RPG is Dreamchaser because it's very easy to pick up and make it fit your group. Mage: the Ascension (Revised Edition) is my favourite rules heavy RPG by a huge margin. Ars Magica comes close, but there is nothing quite like the big magical mixing bowl of genres that is Mage. However, you have to learn a lot of rules and its also very demanding of the players, and especially the storyteller leading the group. The base premise is that reality is determined consensually and your magic comes from your paradigm (how you believe reality works), so you'll often have heated discussion about paradigms. Think of something like Morpheus trying to explain to someone that reality is merely a program they exist within, or agent Smith trying to convince the other agents there's a world outside of the Matrix. The magic system is based on your understanding of the different spheres of magic (life, matter, time, space, etc.) that you can freely combine to cast spells. You start off quite weak with only an ability to sense these things, but by the end you'll be able to bend reality to your will. This does mean the game becomes easier to break as you progress, hence you need more adult roleplayers to get the most out of the game or you'll just end up with Murderhobo: the Apocalypse.

[@matthewparker9276]

Two things that make for a good rules light game are system reuse, and limited-no nondiagetic progression. System reuse is how you can add complexity to a rules light game without adding many rules. For example, a rules light game I've played treats spells like items, because the game already includes items and spells fill the same function, so use the same rules. Limiting nondiagetic progression (i.e. leveling, skill increases, etc.) lets you avoid the added complication such progression brings (e.g. aditional character abilities), and you don't need to account for the impact of that progression on the gameplay, so you can use things like static DCs, etc. On the other hand, rules heavy games benefit a lot from interacting systems. So instead of spells and items using the same system, your interactions with one system could impact on your options/access in another system, possibly via a third system (e.g. ability scores). This is especially good if they are active interactions, i.e. they occur during gameplay, though for this they do need to be simple enough to resolve at the table. And while rules heavy games don't need progression, they can make much more use of it than a rules light game, because it allows the player to change their experience with the systems throughout the game. Interactions can become easier or more powerful, or you can build up or redirect the interactions between systems.

[@bharl7226]

A superb summary of aspects I hadn’t been able to put into words for so long! I’ve been developing my own TTRPG for a helluva while now, and I’m trying to get simulation style depth within a rules light framework. Most of that has necessitated exactly what you describe, with flexible and reusable mechanical systems without allowing any kind of non-diegetic “gamey” types of systems.

[@douglasphillips5870]

I like that rules light allows for player creativity without straining the system or taking levels in multiple classes with special archetypes, and a bunch of prerequisite feats

[@adolexical]

IMO that lack of investment is also what makes it an unsatisfying and shallow experience

[@rynowatcher]

You are relating rules heavy/light to granularity or specificity in a game and that is not always one to one. Ie, fate is really specific about how to use skills, but they are a bit rules light in what the implications are for the game. D&d 3.5e is really, really specific about combat, but survival skills are just "roll a die, lol."

[@FMD-FullMetalDragon]

Have you ever looked at the Fate RPGs not designed by Evil Hat? Some of the crunchiest RPGs in gaming are Fate RPGs. Mindjammer, Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre, Starblazer Adventures are 4 very crunchy RPGs and use the Fate system.

[@rynowatcher]

@@FMD-FullMetalDragon again, there is a mingling of terms here that I do not think applies in this context. Dresden FATE is a rules heavy game, but it is not crunchy (numbers stay small, and 95% of roles are dice + attribute + situational modifier) and it is really simple rules (each attribute you can only attack, overcome, defend, or create an advantage). You can run Dresden with the one sheet rules summery in the FATE core book; it contains all the rules you need for the game on that one sheet of b5 paper. It is simple but not easy, and it has a lot of moving parts. Kind of my point; you can fit the rules for chess on a letter sized sheet of paper, so it is rules light while at the same time being one of the most complicated games at the same time that multiple people have spent their entire life trying to master.

[@goyasolidar]

I play a homebrew campaign which I believe sits within "the Goldilocks zone" wherein I subtract crunch by simplifying or excising certain rules and add crunch where I feel the rules are lacking.

[@beetlejuss]

Some recent games have a very interesting take, they have crunch on mechanics meaningful for the theme but they are light on the rules that are less important. I see this mostly on games created by Free League. For example Twilight 2000 has ammo dice, while in BladeRunner you have all the ammo you need. Year Zero Engine is so customized in every game that feel completelly different. Another example is Tales from the Loop vs Alien. The first doesn't even allow the kids to die, the 2nd you can be killed in a single turn by a Xenomorph. Compare this approach to something like GURPS or BRP, where they make.a generic system is crunch in every single area just to accommodate any possible theme or type of game. Life is too short for learning things that are not going to give you joy.

[@afoaa]

To me the holy grail of rules are simple rules that are still clearly defined adding a lot of possible details without crunch. It is so easy to make simple rules where you basically have one task resolution mechanics but everything else depends on how much everyone agrees on right and wrong on the table, and as a very old roleplayer i can tell you that this is an unstable state. Over time people change and the harmony at the table will be broken if you dont have a common ruleset to base your interactions in the game on. It is also easy to make complicated rules that details everything possible but they are usually crunchy and can drain the vitality out of a game group over time, or even worse complicated rules that dont give the game a lot of variable options (like half the 2d20 games). Right now the dice code version of the Year Zero engine is this system for me. It allows players a great deal of power to alter the odds and events in the game without having to rely of odds altering resource pools, while at the same time being so simple that you as a gm never have to spend time on thinking about stats and mechanics when you prepare for sessions. And it still have thing probably more clearly defined than games like pathfinder.

[@SeanFranchise]

As someone who's been running PF2e for a year and recently started solo-ing Forbidden Lands, I've been amazed at how well the Year Zero Engine that FL runs on simplifies the mechanics while sacrificing none of the tactics and decision making that makes PF so appealing. The low/no-math of hunting for 6's makes the system a breeze to implement, and the focus stays on the narrative without leaving everything up to table interpretation like more narrative games; not that I don't also love those.

[@bharl7226]

You nailed my design philosophy for my own TTRPG, precisely, in your first sentence! I’m not familiar with the system you mentioned, but will definitely look into it. 🤔

[@SummerOtaku]

My favorite is Kids on Bikes!

[@TheGladGolem]

Forgive me, but… how would you sell me on KOB?

[@SummerOtaku]

@@TheGladGolem Oh! So the vibe is roleplay forward so rules light with a very easy to understand system. The vibe is like Stranger Things or Monster Squad, or ET or Goonies or It…kids/teens over their heads but could be used for other stuff. Mechanically you have 6 stats, if you think brains is your best stat you assign it the d20, your next best stat you assign a d12, then a d10, etc. So if your brawn ends up being your d4 but you got to move a bookcase or something with a difficulty of 5, you can still roll your d4 and if you get a 4, it’s called a lucky break, the dice explodes and you roll again adding it to your roll…and that can keep happening. If you fail you earn an adversity token you can add to a future roll later. It’s very fun! You can play a serious supernatural horror slasher or a goofy and innocent thing like Scooby doo.

[@TheGladGolem]

@@SummerOtaku Great answer! Exactly what I hoped for. Thank you very much.

[@urbaneblobfish]

I need to try this game!

[@kidneytheft8285]

Another great video. I myself lean to rules lite but my players like to argue a lot so I write down my rulings and before too long Im playing a rules heavy game.

[@pablohornos9702]

The vast amount of examples are really appreatiated. Really cool analisis and very well conveyed! I really the point that a TTRPG skill should be transferable between different GMs: It's really sad when a GM has to tell a player that what they are trying to do is not actually in the rules, but a homebrew they assimilated probably from another group :/ Great work!

[@dungeondr]

17:30 I think it's possible to bridge this gap. In my own system I've implemented in addition to basic actions (attack, defend, dash) the idea of a "skill" action where the player may attempt to use a skill in some way (there're 8 broadly defined skills). The rules do not provide a strict limit on what it may accomplish but examples like grappling and pickpocketing are provided. This allows the shenanigans action (which is what I have actually called it around my players) to exist and even be interacted with mechanically (e.g. a trickster could use the trickery skill as a minor action instead if a major action). I believe systems like Fabula Ultima have a similar treatment of soft rules being coded into the hard rules of conflicts.

[@Luykosaurus]

My favorite TTRPG is Ishanekon: World Shapers and I would classify it as a 6 on your scale if you have to boil it down to a number. However, it has some great ways to please both sides of the rule spectrum. Cinematic actions allow you to dip into the improvisational nature of rules-light TTRPGs, allowing you, at the cost of Narrative Momentum, to basically try everything the GM allows while only having to roll one Skill Check. There are even Sub-Archetypes that specialize in those and a Path so that you can go full in and play as a character that barely references any of the core mechanics. On the other hand, it has the Traits (which you can pick with the GM's permission), which allow for almost GURPS levels of customization by taking negative and positive ones. It also includes a Beginner and Core tag as well as a complexity rating for every single Sub-Archetype, Ability, feature, and item upgrade so that you can adjust the choices to what you feel comfortable with instead of being overwhelmed with the hundreds of options.

[@yurisei6732]

Gurps isn't actually rules-heavy though, it's this interesting, bizarre situation where it's rules-lite, but you define every improvised action you're going to take weeks in advance. In the session, you can only do what your features allow you to do (unless you take the feature that lets you make up features in the session), but between sessions, you can come up with pretty much any feature imaginable and say your character gains that feature, and the GM is expected to adjudicate the suitability of that feature just as they would in a rules-lite system.

[@Luykosaurus]

@@yurisei6732 That's fair enough, but we are talking about a game that differentiates between 14 different pistols... for World War 2... only for Great Britain. I am not sure that I would call a TTRPG with this insane amount of detail rules-lite.

[@yurisei6732]

@@Luykosaurus Really, it highlights the limitations of having a "rules-heavy vs rules-lite" categorisation, since neither actually gets defined very well to begin with. I'd call Gurps "Rules-lite with insane GM support". There are no rules telling you what you can and can't do except the point system and the way you use those points to define custom features, and the rules for resolving uncertainty are very simple, but there are an uncountable number of modules and supplements for telling you how you might want to define your custom features and how you might adjudicate the power level, impact and point values of those custom features.

[@Luykosaurus]

@@yurisei6732 I get your point, and to be fair, I have never played GURPS before. However, as an outsider, I do get the feeling that the intended way to play it is to get all the supplements you need and build your own custom ruleset with it instead of using the barebone rules.

[@yurisei6732]

@@Luykosaurus That's just how rules-lite works. Rules-lite means "The GM makes a custom ruleset".

[@epimetrius7348]

At around 4:27, an interesting game to consider is Mothership, where the rules suggest that rolling the dice is not considering whether or not your character succeeds, rather, if they can mitigate consequences. For example, you're trying to jump across the gap, your character needs to get across to make the story keep going, so the GM doesn't really consider failure here. You don't hit the target number, so the downside is you drop your flashlight. Mothership being a sci-fi horror game, losing that flashlight is pretty bad news. Another game, or system of games, is the 2d20 games (Achtung! Cthulhu, Dune, Star Trek, etc.) where some tests are recommended to be 0 successes needed, this is so the players can build up pools of the in-game meta currency. All that to say, I think a key difference, an y'all touched on it, rules-light games tend to rely on the GM's interpretation and really asks the GM to adjudicate.

[@Dracoaurion]

Mechanical worker here; Everything is a hammer!

[@crazyjay2741]

Been getting into Runequest lately. Going to get my crew to go thru the character creation soon and then onto the adventure. Runequest is definitely more rules heavy and even its sibling CoC

[@bonzwah1]

Do you want the GM to tell people no, or do you want the game to tell people no XD My wife doesnt like it when i tell her no, so when she is a player, i tend to run games with a heavier ruleset than usual, so that the "no" comes from the rulebook rather than me haha.

[@kyros905]

You actually need to have a Broad tag in City of Mist, but just one. The character creation rules say you will meed this Broad one that is always useful.

[@dahuntre]

And then systems will have certain things light or heavy - 5e is heavy with combat, that’s its most robust system, but light with role playing. There’s no mechanic for how much NPCs like PCs, different types of arguments being more effective on certain people, etc like there are hit points and damage types.

[@themasterseye]

At 6:20 I have to disagree with one part of the "this is a drill" point. Rules heavy games do not always, (and I would even say it is not common to) strictly prohibit the use of a drill as a hammer. That normally comes down to the GM not allowing that because "there is a hammer, why would you use a drill as a hammer". Instead rules heavy games will provide what is a drill, and what is a hammer, what they do, and how they are different. GMs can usually allow for improvisation without breaking the rules, although it may take some improvisation on their part, like increasing the difficulty, or changing the process of determining success or failure.

[@bunnyniyori6324]

To answer the question. Well using only hand tools doesn't make you a better woodworker. An artist is only great if their art is considered great. A great novel is just words on a page, it's how they were chosen and used that matters. If the DM sucks, it doesn't matter what RPG they were using. If the DM is great, it doesn't matter what RPG they are using. Sooo, how long do you want to spend making a PC? How much effort do you want to need to run a game? I like Warhammer FRPG, but it can get expensive to purchase. Fortunately you only 'need' the core manual. To play D&D you only require the BE in BECMI. If you offered me every single 5th edition book in print in hardcover for free, I am likely to thank you and not use it. I'd rather have an original copy of the adventure modules up to and including 1st AD&D. Not that all of them were great though.

[@SavageGreywolf]

Personally I prefer rules medium. That sounds like a joke, but it isn't.

[@rommdan2716]

Like Savage Worlds?

[@1simo93521]

I love rules lite, but I'm very creative so I find rules heavy systems slow and clunky.

[@jonmacbuff2268]

From what you guys are saying, you seem to be separating GM types more than game types. Anyone can use a “rules-heavy” system in the manner that you talked about for “rules-light” system.

[@rommdan2716]

I'm going to say an opinion said 1 million times. Rules Light games are good for one-shots/Short Campaigns Rules Heavy are good for long campaigns

[@radielkill]

i don't agree, I have long campaigns with rule light games and they were great ( maybe because I hate dnd 5e and the extensive rules for combat)

[@yurisei6732]

@@radielkill The thing about TTRPGs is that any system you choose is going to cause less than a third of the total fun. Even the most rules-heavy systems in existence aren't very fun to play if you aren't also roleplaying and storytelling. Using the "wrong" system for your campaign doesn't cause an unfun campaign, it just lowers the amount the system contributes to the fun you have. To assign them abstract point values, a campaign using the right system for it might have 30 total Fun Score; 10 from the system, 20 from all the other aspects, and a campaign using the wrong system might have 25 total Fun Score because the system is only half as suitable.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

Some systems can draw more of those other aspects out of me then others. I like rules heavy games cause I use the rules for inspiration. If I were to say what my favorite game was it would be fantasy flight star wars simply cause of it's dice system. That said I've been making my own system

[@SerifSansSerif]

I think "rules sensible' is more appropriate. Most rules light games feel incomplete (or they ARE incomplete and a minor cash grab post OGL). Most rules heavy games have weird unforseen interaction, contradictory rules, or other issues due to wanting "crunch". When games, like lancer, are also myopic, in that combat is rules heavy and outside the mech is not, you create a game that is unbalanced between role play.and combat and your gameplay comes across as incomplete or not caring about something.outside of one aspect.

[@memeslich]

That thumbnail 😂

[@anarchistmugwump9137]

I think your description of rules light vs heavy is kinda wrong. I don't think crunch means less creativity. I think it often allows for a great deal of possibilities, because the designers have accounted for those possibilities, you just need to pay attention to the rules in order to do that, rather than rolling the same checks with the same broad skills. The possibility exists to do something incredible within the rules and the rules are your framework for how to accomplish that, it can be especially rewarding long-term. I say this as someone who prefers rules light games.

[@ChrisVengeant]

Rules heavy games are actually better than narrative games for immersion. Thats because they tend to be simulationistic in nature. All you need is a GM with the time and patience needed to master a rules heavy game, like Rolemaster, for example.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

How I like to see it in a well built rules heavy game mechanics are flavor. For instance in a well built game you should be able to look at a species/race mechanics and be able to tell a lot about them without having to look at a lore writeup

[@FMD-FullMetalDragon]

As a game system the Fate system is very misleading. It gives the impression of being a very narrative, almost story game like design but in order to pull off that narrative game flow it requires a lot if gamist system mastery. You need to know how Aspects function and all your many options of use. Need to know how Stunts work, Fate Points, Skills, Stress and how interconnected they all are. Not all Stunts are the same. You have many applications for using Fate Points. There are many ways to use Aspects - do you invoke, compel, create temporary aspects, scene aspects, consequence aspects?, etc. These games can be super crunchy. Mindjammer and Legends of Anglerre are two of them.

[@douglasphillips5870]

I think there are a few specific systems, but every thing works on those few systems. Once you have the basics. It's just a matter of applying them to the situation

[@urbaneblobfish]

I think that’s because people conflate crunchy with gamist/simulationist style games and rules lite with narrative, which just isn’t true. There are a lot of crunchy narrative games, but for some reason we kinda ignore that.

[@terratorment2940]

Rules heavy has a negative connotation. I think of those games as more "tactical" than rules light games where mastery of the system is rewarded. Generally combat in most system is where rules are the heaviest.

[@beetlejuss]

Rules heavy are negative when you are the GM and you don't have time to learn a complex system. Is very easy for players to choose let's say Pathfinder but is a heavy toll on the GM. Those kind of games are better handled as a video game.

[@tomraineofmagigor3499]

​@@beetlejussonline tools, vtts, and ai built to run games (even if it's only the combat part with the gm free to give the ai input or take control) is peak for rules heavy games. I think once ai gets that good we'll start seeing more rules heavy games using such a resource

[@leonelegender]

​@@beetlejuss there is gm that have fun learning system mechanics. Pathfinder makes it really easy to come up with anything new on it cause it have rules to create most things

[@beetlejuss]

@@leonelegender yeah, and that does not contradict my point, there are all kind of players and GMs, but there is also one common scenario for many is that we have to work and we don't have so much time for complexity in games.

[@yurisei6732]

Rules heavy, always. Situations where rules-lite is the best approach are always situations where not very much more work gets you into one-rule roleplaying, which is even better at what doing rules-lite systems do. Rules-lite systems kind of end up a crutch for tables that aren't confident doing free-form roleplay.

[@Dracoaurion]

I just don't like the marketing that a designer telling me they have lite rule sets, it translates that I am asked to buy a $40 book but it's missing pieces.