What is your favorite rules light system? Pic unrelated

>>54067287
Rogan

>>54067287
Barbarians of Lemuria

Its a shame I cant find any experienced players in my area who want to play anything other than D&D.

What is the appeal of rules-heavy systems anyway?

>>54067441
Crunchy character creation, at least with gurps

>>54067287
I don't know if Savage Worlds is light enough to count, but if it is, it'd be my favorite.

If it isn't, I'mma go with Risus.

>>54067287
Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.

>>54067452
My argument has always been that things like that are a distraction. Fun character creation does not enhance the game itself.

>>54067287
Barbarians of Lemuria, Risus, Lasers and feelings... really, as long as you don't take it too seriously, you can't go bad with rules light.

>>54067441
I like tactical combat, it's hard to get that right with rules light.

>>54067452
Pretty much. Once you're in it goes really quick, character creation is just frontloaded.

File: 1486315757001.jpg (233KB, 1217x621px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1217x621px

>>54067441
>Barbarians of Lemuria
Came in here to post this

>>54067481
>character creation is a distraction
>fun character creation doesn't enchance the system

Your arguments are retarded. Just say you're not into crunchy systems, nobody is going to give you shit for it.

>>54067491
What about tactical combat appeals to you though? Why not just scratch that itch with a night wargame or something?

>>54067525
I havnt even presented my argument, but thats ok, you can just call me retarded and assume everybody else is just as impulse-driven as you are.

File: 1383142578912.png (206KB, 474x474px)

206KB, 474x474px

>>54067287
Honestly just Freeform plus a single die of choice. Roll assisted Freeform I call it.
You have to be on the same page with the players and have a good Idea of their characters.
Max result is the best possible thing happens considering character and circumstance, min result, the worst happens.

Most regular light systems fall into a uncanny valley for me. Although they reduce the simulationistic aspect of the rules they proceed to gleefully restrict the narrative proceedings in a corset of rules that is absent from more heavy systems.

>>54067424
Mallista

>>54067441
In the light of what I wrote previously, heavy systems have the weight and structural assistance where I want or need them. In the detailed resolving of the actions chosen, not as an artificial element to the choices I make.

I also delight and having the "screen resolution" if you will to represent the detail I imagine and
have them make a nuanced difference. It has influence if my guy is slightly stronger than average, compared to only having steps stat go cripple-weak-normal-strong-superman.
Or a weak poison is different from a medium one. It makes the situation feel like everything that lead up to it matters.
Then you have emergent complexity, when detailed results and combinations thereof can lead to stories you wouldn't have imagined. Dwarf Fortress effect if you will.

>>54067634
Then present your arguments instead of being a passive agressive bitch.

>>54067644
I did freeform with the Stalker RPG and single contested die rolls for most things. Usually with some off my head modifiers. It was a really fun game, everyone had fun.

>>54067626
Doing it with a character I also roleplay makes it really my own.

Also, controlling a single character is a lot faster, and this requires less effort for more immediate benefit than wargames.

It's a silly question anyway, kinda like asking "well, if you have chicken meat in your soup, why don't you just eat a chicken?". I like the combination of flavors it has more than the individual parts.

>>54067481
>Fun character creation does not enhance the game itself.
If it's fun, how does that not enhance the game?

Aside from that, I wouldn't even say character creation in GURPS is necessarily fun. It's just very thorough.

>>54067652
I would argue, and have, that the fun of generating a character is separate to the fun of actually playing the game in the same way that the fun of designing an MtG deck is different and distinct from the fun of actually playing the game.

Furthermore, in trying to make character creation more engaging and enjoyable on a mechanical level designers often take on features which do not enhance the actual play of the game. The primary example I would use is the presence of Timmy-feats in pathfinder. Such features are tolerable in a purely mechanical game like MtG, but are not useful in a roleplaying game, as they create a needless barrier to entry, and marginalize what seem to be reasonable approaches.

I argue then, that any game which priorities that sort of 'deck-building' fun in character creation does not have roleplay but rollplay as its priority, knowingly other otherwise.

>>54067713
Because its separate from the game, and from a design perspective does not share priorities. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

>>54067736
>I would argue, and have, that the fun of generating a character is separate to the fun of actually playing the game in the same way that the fun of designing an MtG deck is different and distinct from the fun of actually playing the game.

I'd argue that you are wrong and it carries over. Having fun with building a character makes me associate good feelings with it and enhances my play; especially if it works in practice as I imagined.

>Furthermore, in trying to make character creation more engaging and enjoyable on a mechanical level designers often take on features which do not enhance the actual play of the game. The primary example I would use is the presence of Timmy-feats in pathfinder. Such features are tolerable in a purely mechanical game like MtG, but are not useful in a roleplaying game, as they create a needless barrier to entry, and marginalize what seem to be reasonable approaches.

Not only do you make the mistake of associating all "fun" character creation methods with Ivory Tower BS, you also don't understand the nomenclature behind Timmy/Spike/Johnny; Timmy cards don't have to be bad, they have to be large impact. Time Stop (the D&D spell) is definitely a Timmy card, as are things like large damage dice weapons. In MtG, those stupid big monsters that had been dominating the pro scene (Eldrazi?) are both Timmy, Spike, and Johnny (since you need to cheat them out, usually).

>I argue then, that any game which priorities that sort of 'deck-building' fun in character creation does not have roleplay but rollplay as its priority, knowingly other otherwise.

Again, that's not the only method. Randomly rolling a character for example, can also be fun. Hell, refluffing a 4e character can be fun.

>>54067749
It seems arbitrary to designate one part of the game to be not really part of the game.

I've got to with Risus here. Surprisingly well-supported for the little indie offering that it is, and it does pretty much whatever I need it to on those rare occasions where a lighter game than OD&D is called for.

>>54067799
Where to even begin.
>You are wrong
not an argument
>It enhances play with positive feelings
by that logic the snacks at the table are an important aspect of game design.

As for my assumptions about Ivory Tower design, I would agree that only PF uses it explicitly, but it has existed as an aspect of design in many rules-heavy games as a way of rewarding supposedly good decision making. The inclusion of inferior or sub-optimal options is either blatant as in PF or due to design incompetence as in most editions of DnD proper.

>random rolling and refluffing
Refluffing is not an emergent property of the system, nor is it necessary or reflexive. Its something you can do if you're a fairly good roleplayer, and as such its not a triumph of the system but a triumph of the players using it.

You've got me on random rolling though, although in that case you're just ignoring the complexity of the system for fun, which in a longer argument could be bent to prove my point.

>>54067807
Its not arbitrary, the priorities involved in enhancing the game are separate for the two operations.

It can be crunchy and fun to make a character in a game that plays horribly. Assuming there is a limited amount of design effort expended in development any game which give priority crunchy character creation is therefore deficient in gameplay proper, at least more so than it need be.

>>54067889
But why can one game not have those two parts, even if they are different? You can't interchange them between games. And you can't play the games to full extend without the generation. So how is this part of the rules not part of the game, even if it tickles other regions of the brain? The presence of subdivisions doesn't preclude the existence of a whole.

>>54067889
>not an argument
You are right. I merely voiced my disagreement with your non-argument.
>by that logic the snacks at the table are an important aspect of game design.

Nah, cause they are not part of the game. They don't come bundled with the book.

>As for my assumptions about Ivory Tower design, I would agree that only PF uses it explicitly, but it has existed as an aspect of design in many rules-heavy games as a way of rewarding supposedly good decision making. The inclusion of inferior or sub-optimal options is either blatant as in PF or due to design incompetence as in most editions of DnD proper.

Sure, and it's exactly as bad there. Not gonna argue that it can't be done badly, or that it's always done perfectly, or without faults; but I don't need to, to refute your theory.

>Refluffing is not an emergent property of the system, nor is it necessary or reflexive. Its something you can do if you're a fairly good roleplayer, and as such its not a triumph of the system but a triumph of the players using it.

It's a creative excersize done while creating a character that is not optimizing/number crunching or whatever.

>You've got me on random rolling though, although in that case you're just ignoring the complexity of the system for fun, which in a longer argument could be bent to prove my point.

Sure, go ahead. I prefer doing my characters without random rolling, but I'd posit that even if you random roll, if it is made to take advantage of the system and not just thoughtlessly tacked on, you still take advantage of the complexity of the system, since the table gets its options from the system itself; in a simple system, random rolling is less interesting.

>>54067951
Im less talking about the rules as a static text and more about the activity of carrying out those rules. I would challenge you to find a game which does not separate its character creation rules from its rules of play. Rather than targeting some generality, why is my MtG example in correct?

>>54067971
If you recognize that design which favors crunchy character design can be done badly,then we're on the same page. My point is that it is separate from actual gameplay, and therefore if you have good gameplay rules to begin with then taking the risk of a design misstep in the name of enhancing what is in essence a front-end minigame is unnecessary. I would equate playing such a game to eating a prepared foogoo-fish: there is no significant experiential difference between eating it and other similar fish, and as such it is hardly worth the risk for any sensible diner.

As for your response to my bit on refluffing, we are, again, in agreement. It has nothing to do with the mechanics and so it cannot be seen as a triumph of the system. Rather, it is a triumph of the player.

As for random rolling, the extent to which it is thoughtfully included is irrelevant because it allows players to side-step a fairly important decision-phase of character creation. I would argue that the fact that skipping a phase of the activity being fun does not bode well for the quality of the activity in general.

>>54067626
Wargames have an even smaller audience, much more expensive, and very rarely have a focus on small groups.

>>54068095
Thats a fair point. Let me amend that to "why wouldnt you" rather than "why dont you".

>>54068085
>My point is that it is separate from actual gameplay, and therefore if you have good gameplay rules to begin with then taking the risk of a design misstep in the name of enhancing what is in essence a front-end minigame is unnecessary.

Good character creation is part of good gameplay. You can not arrive at gameplay without creating a character first. You can not separate the two. Heck, I'd posit that a good game would be made so bad character creation (if for some reason the designers forgot how to game design between designing the rest of the system and designing character creation) could not ruin, only not-enhance.

>As for your response to my bit on refluffing, we are, again, in agreement. It has nothing to do with the mechanics and so it cannot be seen as a triumph of the system. Rather, it is a triumph of the player.

There has to be a mechanical hook for the refluff to matter.

Refluffing in, say, RISUS doesn't matter, because mechanically everything is using the same framework. There may be a small enjoyment derived from coming up with the correct descriptors but that1s about it.

Meanwhile, refluffing in 4e is a nice thought exercise of matching the mechanics to the fluff.

>As for random rolling, the extent to which it is thoughtfully included is irrelevant because it allows players to side-step a fairly important decision-phase of character creation.

Decision making isn't the only fun part of character building. Getting to see WTF I end up with can be just as fun, if done well, and depending on the method/system used, "WTF I do with this" is a puzzle that can be pretty interesting on its own, and a direct result of randomness; since the puzzle wouldn't exist (or wouldn't often turn up) without the random creating the combination.

>>54068148
If combat is a large part of the system it better be interesting

>>54067474
>Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.

This game is a great idea, surrounded by shit. The idea is, instead of regular stats, you have Warrior, Rogue, and Mage for your stats. And you roll them to see whether you succeed. So a character with Warrior 4 Rogue 1 Mage 4 is a spellsword of some type, whereas a character with Warrior 1 Rogue 4 Mage 4 is likely some kind of arcane trickster or bard. Or you could play a straight mage with Warrior 1 Rogue 1 Mage 6. The idea is very inventive, which just makes it sadder when you discover the rest of the game is crap. The core mechanic is a 1d6 roll. Yep, that’s right. 1d6. Oh, you say, well that could work if the modifiers are bounded… oh wait they aren’t. Stats range 0 to 6. At start. And skills give you another +2. On top of this, armor adds to your Defense. It isn’t damage reduction, it’s basically an AC bonus as in D&D. So rather than spreading protective modifiers among multiple mechanics, Michael Wolf stacks them all into one. And the game has exploding dice for both attack and damage, so there is no excuse for this. However, there is one excuse for most of the terrible design choices in this game: the author worked on D&D 3.5 and is stuck in a Dungeons and Dragons mindset. As a result, a great idea is contaminated by blindly-applied D&D mechanics. The result is a shitpile of a game that can barely stand up under its own weight. Which is sad, because if it had a more competent core mechanic, it would stand proudly as the best rules-light OSR-style game out there. Even without the skills and traits. However, due to some strange obsession with 3e-era design, and its insistence on a dumb 1d6 mechanic, it’s at best mediocre.

File: Dungeon-World-388x220.jpg (38KB, 388x220px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 388x220px

Dungeon World. It's fast, with a strong core mechanic built to enhance the story, not restrict it like the shitty D&D mechanics. Failure in Dungeon World is actually interesting, and all of the abilities are codified into the core mechanic to make it fast, fun, and easy to use. The combat is also much, much better. A dragon doesn't need 300 hit points to be challenging like it does in D&D, it can do stuff that's actually terrifying, like rip a character's arm off. Also, armor is damage reduction so no more of this "less likely to hit, but still does full damage if it does hit" bullshit. The monster stats are incredibly light, character creation is extremely fast and fluid, with just as many options as D&D when you consider that most of D&D is trap options. There is no powergaming in Dungeon World, just a fast story-based game that still has the mechanics from D&D that you love (hit points, classes, etc) but with much stronger mechanics that lead to a more fulfilling roleplaying experience.

My last session of Dungeon World, my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window into the castle moat. That is real roleplaying, not babby D&D shit where you have to make two different rolls and then have some autist look up how far you can move about while grappling. Dungeon World is about fun and good story, not rules and combat bullshit.

Check it out for yourself: www.dungeonworldsrd.com

>>54068212
Is this pasta?

I don't know WRM, but it sounds like kinda bad pasta.

>>54068183
>good character creation is part of good gameplay
I have refuted that with examples and an argument, can you explain why you feel that way beyond that it, as an enjoyable act, enhances gameplay proper?

>refluffing
yes, but the quality of that refluffing is not emergent from the system itself. It is something a good player does with a mediocre system.

>>54068254
Literally nothing it says is incorrect. Stop thinking that every post longer than 14 words, is pasta. Either refute the points it makes, or fuck off.

>>54068262
>I have refuted that with examples and an argument

I... have somehow missed these?

You have posited a theory (that it is separate and not part of it) and repeated it, but I don't see any examples?

>yes, but the quality of that refluffing is not emergent from the system itself. It is something a good player does with a mediocre system.

I disagree, boradly applicable mechanics that can be fluffed in many ways is the signs of a good system, not a mediocre one. How refluffable something is, is without a doubt part of the system's properties.

>>54067287
MAID RPG, the only rules light system I tried yet.

>>54068331
I can't help but notice that you did not answer the question.

Which makes this actually sorta amusing I guess.

>>54068360
It's not pasta you stupid fuck.

>>54068366
Nevermind, I just googled it

virtposting should be bannable

>>54068344
I agree that how refluffable things are is a property, but its not really something thats actively encouraged by rules-heavy systems. Where barbs explicitly says "you figure it out" 4e is a bunch of corn husks you have to make into dolls yourself.

>>54068420
Sure, and I think making those dolls is a fun process, if you like to get creative with mechanics.

I also think your analogy is biased but w/e, it's still within acceptable parameters.

File: Risus - The Anything RPG.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>54067287
Risus, of course. Light and friendly. I've used it for everything from Rifts to Call of Cthulhu to OSR-style dungeoneering.

Have the PDF.