(Circa 1977) I fondly remember playing the basic set and then going over to AD&D. Playing the games after school in our Junior High cafeteria. We always kept it simple in our games and used rules like a salad bar. We took what was needed to play a campaign and didn’t use the rest. However, going to campaign to campaign the rules we played changed some but it was simple and fun. Not bad for 12 and 13 years olds. I remember some of the teachers and staff pitching a fit because we were playing D&D and the Principal came in and said keep going and watched us for about 15 minutes. After that we had no more issues. I ran into him several years ago and thanked him for letting us play. I asked what he said to the teachers. He said he told them that they were not fighting, smoking cigarettes or pot and were reading books and to leave the kids alone.
Swedish viewer here. I would just like to express appreciation toward the professor for how his pronounciation of "Mörk Borg" is consistently improving.
Love the reference/homage to Moldvay Basic in the name “Morgyn Metalfwolf” in the DB character sheet… Long live Morgan, Sister Rebecca, and Silverleaf!
One of my favorote game systems is Traveller. Despite the thousands of rule books published for this game over the last 45 years, it all boils down to rolling 2d6 and adding a skill modifier, trying to beat a number…usually: 8.
@@tomkerruish2982 It's great. I've actually used the detailed character creation system (with resolution for each year individually) as something of a stand-alone mini-game. Dying because you rolled a snake eyes when your Naval ensign is resolving his year of Shore Duty is just part of the game. More annoying if your group is trying to roll up characters and start a campaign.
I teach 20 students aged 12-13yrs in a digital (computer) class and am using a rules light version of D&D to immerse the players in a survival setting where their characters have crash landed on the mysterious Skull Island in the Bermuda Triangle. Players have to work together in tribes similar to Lord of the Flies to find food, shelter and explore the island for useful items to allow them to escape the island/be rescued. As in your video I ask them what they want their character to do and I assign a 1-20 difficulty/number they need to succeed. Characters get one action per class and tribe leaders get 2 actions. The setting plays out like a mixture of Lost, Indiana Jones and King Kong where players dont know what dangers they will come across but could include wild animals, traps, alien technology or a tribe already living on the island. I reward students for completing set assignments with benefits in the game such as advantage or an extra action and punish the students who are not putting in effort in their work by 'freezing' their character in the game by taking away any actions for that lesson. Works great and keeps even the most wayward students focused on finishing their assignment work! We play over 10wks, about 2-3 lessons per wk. Character sheets have basic D&D stats and a profession slot which each player rolled using a d20. These ranged from barber, mechanic and Plumber to Navy Seal and homeless person. If they can justify their character has a profession that might assist in any task, they get advantage on their roll. I am open to any ideas, no matter how farfetched or unlikely they may be... One character has a lightsaber but no kyber crystal to make it work, another has a rusty gun with no bullets. They might find what they need in the wreckage of the plane at the bottom of the lagoon just off the coast of Skull Island... if they can figure out how to get to it!
Love it, I used dnd and shadowrun to teach English as a second language for over a decade. My last two years teaching (2018-2019) I moved into rule-less storytelling. We played all kind of scenarios using verbal and written communication.
Awesome work@@Recontramojado rpgs in general are a totally untapped resource and powerful motivator all schools could be using to teach all kinds of content.
Rules light games are great, and I appreciate everyone that I've ever played. That said, crunchy systems certainly have their place too. I find with new players, sometimes a crunchy system gives them insight into abilities they would never think of themselves. It's almost as if the crunch (spellls,skills, feats) help to shape their idea of what is possible. Sure, imagination is our most wonderful ability. However, I find too often that sometimes people need a little prod to help branch that imagination out some.
Yeah, I think that is sometimes the source of inspiration the players need when they start roleplaying. I run a campaign with the Fantasy Flight Star Wars system where a single dice roll most of the time has two to four outcomes and therefore the players are somehow forced to use their imagination for the additional outcomes of the dice roll (like advantage, disadvantage, triumph and despair). But still they keep forgetting to use major mechanics of the game like fate points and aiming. While maneuvers like aiming should be used like 80 % of the time, I do not think that players would think about them in a rules light system either. On the other hand the Star Wars system has so many game mechanics that you should think of, it gets confusing. Like you have absorption that reduces damage taken and you have defense that makes it harder to hit you. While the absorption part is pretty easy to use, as the player simply has to subtract it from the damage the GM rolled, the absorption mechanic has to be taken into account from the opposite side of the dice roll. The NPC has the defense stat, but the PC has to roll extra dice for it. That is simply slowing the game down because of the extra communication between GM and player.
Professor DM - Apostle of the good news, as always 👍 On a summer camp when I was about 14 me and my roommates reslized that we all play RPGs. No one brought any dice. We used paper-rock-scissor. Two wins for a player with hard task, two for GM with easy and one in normal cases. Storry was good so it was enough.
When I started DMing for 5e, I was drowning in stats, charts, and just absolute stress. After discovering indie games and rules-lite mechanics (thanks @dungeoncraft), I threw all the crunch out the window and discovered something rare and elusive, fun!
I was DMing at stores for few years. I love that 5e streamlined the rolls, got rid of tHaco, opened up the classes to all races. I hated having 7 people at the table telling ME the Dm the stats of the monster they are fighting. Generally take the books as a framework. It’s up to the DM to come up with ways to call the story, if the player wants to use a certain rule than by all means do it, otherwise I’m going to roll something and keep moving.
If you thought 5e was overwhelming, stay away from 3.5e, where a whole page and a half is dedicated to explaining grappling. For me, 5e is a breeze to run to the point where it's a little boring.
@@blackmage471 i think it depends on if you're looking for startegy, puzzles, or roleplay the most. I enjoy strategy and so prefer something "crunchy" to satisfy my need for difficulty. Some people just want to roleplay and so seem to prefer games with light rules. I still enjoy rp but it's more of a way to justify the game mechanics in my mind, rather than being the end desire for playing in the first place
@@blackmage471 5e is fristrating to me because it doesn't really do any of those three things super well, but is "okay" at all of them. It's definitely too easy for my taste
Rules-light games are fine for doing what they do but, sometimes, you want a game with more power to make your character mechanically unique. Special abilities, racial powers, skills, etc, to add to your toolbox when you encounter an obstacle. The difference between Gun X and Gun Y in Shadowrun might come down to the brand, the scope, the trigger enhancement, and so forth - making the weapon feel mechanically different even though it's just another gun. Finding the build of powers and items that work best for your character can be a lot of fun - a minigame unto itself. Not to mention that being able to do something that your character alone can do makes you feel cool and special. I have run many rules-light games over the years, and one of my groups' favorite systems is fairly rules-light (though it still has skills and special abilities). It allows players to make a wide variety of characters but the rules left make certain everyone is balanced against each other and the challenges appropriate to their power level. One of the groups' favorite parts about the game is the freedom to imagine and construct special abilities to strive toward and improve over time. "City of Mist" is a fantastic rules-light system but it still uses mechanics to balance characters and encounters. If all I have to do is write "10HP" on a piece of paper and hand it out, then I have no need to buy the game you're pitching. Which, sure, that's a great benefit in the hobby - that at the end of the day I could play with nothing but our imaginations - but we play systems because we want that framework to not only contribute to balance but to challenge players to accomplish their goals within the rails of the system. Just as I could forgo any board game just by grabbing some rocks for markers and rolling dice to see who gets to finish-line first but rules make that process a lot more interesting. Lastly, rules help answer the question of whether a PC can do a thing, or why they can't, so that their success isn't always down to GM fiat.
Good points and this is why I use a lot of ideas from Index Card RPG to create characters. I think up what cool stuff I want the PC to do, assign stats, saves, etc. Then I pick 3-4 abilities/powers that make THIS character unique to the others. I steal from5e, PF2e and others. My Monk for example, has flurry of blows which allows him to spread his damage roll among any nearby targets. My Spell Sword can add 1d4 damage of a type from a spell he knows to his melee sword strikes. I need some built in features for my PCs to make them fun, but I also keep it simple.
Ezd6 and death bringer really opened my eyes to how enjoyable rules light systems are. They just flow better and it just fits the way my friends and I like to play.
My group has been playing since mid 90's, we started with 2e D&D. Our current favorite game is Dread. I think the natural tendency is towards less rules because it lets us concentrate on the fun and ideas just like we used to play when we were kids. We don't play to become expert savants, we play to enjoy with each others' shenanigans. Greetings from México, Profesor!
Rules Light all the way babbyyyyy!!! ohhh this video was 🔥! Agree on every point. I started in 5e and absolutely hated the amount of rules I had. With 0 TTRPG experience outside of 5e, I immediately felt like I had 0 authority or room to tell a story or run a game. I was just there to draw maps and place tokens basically. EZD6 was my first Rules Light game and I was completely blown away by the freedom for both sides of the table. It's fantastic. But also, I personally find trying to design a rules light system incredibly entertaining. I've always enjoyed trying to conjure up something complex then whittle it down to the bare minimum and have it still run efficiently. Part of that probably comes from a long history in manufacturing and trying to always make everything faster/smoother/cheaper/easier. But man oh man is it satisfying when you come up with a single little mechanic that covers so much.
Ever since I played 2e back in the 80's I imagined that anyone could completely make a simple role playing game without any books or anything once you had some sort of concept of the core mechanic (roll to succeed, apply damage/success). Kids should be creating their own games rather than purchasing things from WOTC. Imagine the creativity we could see from kids unleashed like that!
I think one of the strengths of rules light that isn't ever addressed is that crunch added via homebrew has way more of an effect than in an already crunchy system. Throwing some stats onto vehicles for a rules light game for example and you are going to be able to much more strongly drive the game in that direction than an already cruchy system even when going very modest on the detail.
I say this a lot. "It's far easier to add complexity to a game, than it is to take it out." I like crunchy elements, but in specific places. So I love taking really simple games and homebrewing in the nitty gritty in the sections that excite me and my table.
That's actually a great way to look at it. I'm running a couple of Fate sessions atm and it surprised me just how much you can change the game by just creating something and attaching to aspects to it :P
Probably the most difficult thing when going rules light is consistency. Making sure you use the same AC and HP on a creature or object every time (unless there is a good reason). My players do call that out if it happens.
Simple way for complex rules to fit in your system- attach them to stuff like class features or special items. Ie- if you want shields to block damage, make an item that does that rather than having it be a core rule
That's the key word for me: accessible. The hardest part of my job is convincing other therapists that RPGs are worth picking up with clients--a job made infinitely harder by the complexity of many systems. So in the end I had to just write my own damn book 🤣.
I was in the MacDeath game that had no character sheets! I recall you saying something like, "I'm going to try something here..." as you passed out the post its! It went great! The game was fun, fast paced, and didn't lack at all without sheets!
This video is right on time for me. I love that you mentioned space combat. I've been spending over a year trying to shoehorn starfinder space combat into our groups 5e homebrew game. We finally got to the space combat. We started at 8:30pm and after all the explaining of the rules, and only 5 rounds of combat it was already midnight and we had to stop. Too much to figure out! I was literally sitting on my lunch break hovering over my GMs notebook, wondering how to fix it when I got the notification of your new video. What a great reminder! Thanks, Professor Dungeon Master!
Traveller's hex map space combat is surprisingly parsimonious. As much as I like 3.X systems, such as Pathfinder & Starfinder, they are inherently too crunchy for my table. As they are essentially miniature skirmish systems more so than roleplaying/storytelling. That said, my friends and I played 3.X for more than ten years--just gets harder as life progresses and everyone has less time to game.
I think it’s all a matter of preference. I like having some mechanical crunch to help me feel grounded in the world. However, it can go too far sometimes where you feel boxed in and not leaving much room for improvisation. The beauty with RPGs is that there are so many ways to play.
Also one thing about the older systems that weren't as 'crunchy' is a lot of things were done as you suggest - it was just assumed that the DM or GM would come up with some roll on the spot (if a roll was needed) and let the player try. They didn't necessarily need 'mastery in acrobatics' to try theatrical things, if they wanted to try. And the DM would come up with some threshold based on the character (and, probably, gear - heavily armored is gonna have a harder time vaulting over tables and swinging from ceiling beams while slashing at their foes than a lightly armored character). It was common-sense based. Then skills were introduced and everything tended towards "do you have that skill? What's your score? OR do you have to do an unskilled check?
AD&D certainly changed this trajectory for the world’s most famous RPG. Greg Stanford’s games were always rules heavy on the couch, starting with RuneQuest, which predated AD&D.
I'm a fan of both rules light and crunch depending entirely on the particular game and what we're looking to get out of it. I do think that it's possible for a system to be too rules-lite (in which case what am I paying for) just as a system can be too crunchy. There's also a lot to be said about how the rules are written that can make an easier system overly difficult to run and a crunchy system easy.
Additional fun-fact: One of the most timeless RPGs ever created (I maintain it is an RPG) is very rules light. I'm thinking of _Diplomacy_ where the players literally run great powers using a system that is not very rules-heavy but is very effective at doing what it does and the PnP version really can't be improved upon by adding more technical crunch as to, say, armies, fleets, technology, skill trees, and the like.
I suppose Diplomacy is much like an RPG. Personally I despise the game because you can be put at a huge disadvantage or out of contention to win a multi hour game by turn 2 or 3 through no fault of your own. Just not for me, but your comparison is very cool.
You're not wrong@@bossman4799 If initial alliances are bad for you it's over quick then you're just on the sidelines effectively and it's exceptionally hard to come back (it can be done and long-timers will point to the times it happens but those are extremely rare). It's a pitfall of simple rules in a way. My other comments in this try to highlight the tradeoffs: as he said in his video there's no 'right' or 'incorrect' here just preferences. I've had that experience you speak of in Diplomacy tho and you're right it sucks because the game goes on and you spend it dead in the water. The worst is still having a unit so you have to keep at it but it's frustrating.
@@Porphyrogenitus1 Yeah, my friends wanted to play it a few times (we mostly play Axis and Allies) and each time I got screwed over turn 2 by two people simultaneously. It really wasn’t fun to sit there knowing I had no shot at winning and everyone else just wanted to use me for backup when attack. I see what you mean by rules light having some pitfalls. I run Call of Cthulhu and if I don’t remember a rule exactly or at all because it doesn’t come up often, I just say “do this” then move on or just play loose with distance to make things go faster.
Solid video. Mork Borg has the right idea with character sheets: a mandatory skull and raven. They're classic symbols for a reason. I prefer the term "efficient" to rules light. For the group I run, their system of choice is Castles and Crusades. C&C (with the Siege Engine) plays like AD&D with the proficiencies and skill checks fixed, class abilities more consistent and logical (finally a sweet level 1 thief), and saving throws well-defined--all of this done in a single mechanic that boils down to a roll vs a target number. You can port the Siege engine in to any version of TSR D&D, and it instantly fixes any of the issues I ever had to address as a DM.
About how easy it is for a beginner to use rule light system, I'd like to add a cons : rules also help players know what they can do. I agree that lighter rules allow for more freedom when you already know what you intend to do, but when you don't... Take a look at your character sheet for options!
I'd say rules help a GM, not necessarily a player, and they might make a player unsure about thinking outside the box. Then again, you need more experience as a DM to gauge the difficulty of a dice roll without consulting a chart in chapter 6, section 11, subsection 1. One of the things I like the most about professor DM's channel are his practical examples for those situations.
It depends on what it is rules light on. Rarely is it a con unless it is something beyond the scope of the game. Most situations out of rules can be broken down into a series of steps within rules. Do you have an example of what you mean?
TL;DR - I agree with the point made by drillerdev4624. Sometimes, rules are very constraining, and limit out of box thinking. As DM/GM, you need a lot experience to gauge difficulty and to not make silly errors (like rolling unnecessarily, because more rolls = more fun [sarcasm]) but having a player have freedom to describe something crazy, and then adjudicating it fairly gives pretty much everyone at the table a true feeling of liberty. I liked the professor's ninja example. In 5e, to play a ninja, you'd need to make some sort of hybrid of monk/rogue, or even a sorcerer. And you'd need throwing stars (which are probably a reflavor of darts). And then when you get into combat, you know that your stars do 1d4+X damage, and have a specific range, and you have set abilities, etc...But it could be really fun, if you're playing a ninja to suddenly (as a player) yell out "I throw a smoke bomb at my foe!" and then the game stops as you all have to think about whether that is even possible, and does this character even have a smoke bomb? What would be the effects? Etc... Rather than getting bogged down in rules based on "well, you only have your ninja stars, and they do a set amount of damage. Can they do a different amount of damage? Well, that's out of my hands as a DM - look at the rules." Rules can also be really constraining for a DM/GM. It can be incredibly frustrating when a player breaks the game, and then points out that the way the game is broken is right there in the rules. You have to master the rules more than the players, and it becomes this arms race, rather than having confidence to just veto something.
Great points Prof DM and clemgerad. One con I have experienced as a DM is in EZD6, managing magic and miracles, without much guidance. Having more rules in theory gives confidence because you know what you can do and how it works… that is, if you can find them :-) There’s great points in both sides of this issue I feel. I have enjoyed the trend toward simplifying things, and look forward to seeing how the pendulum continues to swing in years to come. Ultimately it is about picking the system that you and the players vibe with for the campaign or session at issue. It’s great to have more and more choices!
Rules light for one shots, Rules heavier for a campaign. That's the rule I've used over the years and it works well for me. Since none were bought up, there are definite advantages to crunchier systems, especially for a longer term campaign or higher time investment game. Because a lot of these systems have the specific rules for things laid out by the book themselves, it's very easy to just flip to a page or just flip through pages, find something that piques your interest and then throw that into whatever is going on at the time in a mechanically unique manner. This puts a lot less pressure on the GM mentally, which can be better for newer GMs with less of a creative background or if they're tired or somesuch. Advancement, while slower, can feel much realer and much more satisfying in heavier systems. There's something satisfying about facing a long-standing foes minions sessions apart and going from a knife's edge fair fight to mowing them down several at a time, or taking a spell you'd take rounds to cast previously and insta-frying someone with it. Another major benefit of crunchier systems is more granularity, meaning that you can get higher highs, closer calls and lower lows. A success at a test by just one in a d100 system feels much more impactful than a success by one in a d6 system, for example. If you want my recommendation for crunchy but still fast systems, try Legend of the Five Rings Fourth Edition or the Early Fantasy Flight Systems like DeathWatch or Only War.
I love rules-light systems, I've been championing them for ages, but I have two issues with them. First is character progression; I like the fantasy of going from scared peasant to hardened warrior to valiant hero to wuxia-inspired immortal demigod over the course of play. BECMI gives me a series of systems to make that happen. I'm not sure how to make that happen without those systems. The other issue is that I love rolling dice. Dice are fun, I want to throw a handful of dice now and again, but I'm not sure how to get that experience without a lot of rules. It seems to me that most rules-light systems want to scrap all the DnD dice entirely, and play with only a d6
Even Gygax said so, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek (but candid) remark in either a TD article of in the DMG (I don't have my stuff handy to check but I know this for definite) that it was a "secret" that you didn't really need rules. (Of course in other contexts he's also known for thumping rules. But you get the point - it's also somewhat well known that those original campaigns were rules-light [didn't play by the eventual 'published rules'] and the published rules were sort of an after-effect so people would have them and also, eventually, for tournament play). House rules and ignoring some things (like the weapon vs AC armor tables, which were cool but complex to have to refer to) were the norm. That said even some 'rules-light' systems are better than others, and sometimes they cause more problems than they solve, but in general that's an impact of the table (as is the problem of rules-heavy leading to the classic 'rules lawyer' gamer of olden times).
I've really been trying to get my players on board with a rules-light for our next campaign, which is still probably over a year away. They are pretty resistant and really want Pathfinder 2E. It's hard being a fast-and-loose rules-light dm with a group of crunch-loving players.
Crunch opens a wide gate for players who love being rules lawyers. Not sure if that resembles any folks in 8:25 your group. My experience is that rules lawyers always suck the joy out of games. On the other hand, some folks just love the detail, learning systems, understanding how all the many parts make a whole. That’s great, and those folks are typically not going to do rules light for long.
Honestly, it's a clash of style and if the players don't want to play the rules-light system then you're better off finding another group who suits your DMing style. I personally prefer crunch, I like my RPG to have Game to it and gamer brain sees big number and goes happy lol
Hello Prof. DM. I would like to touch on a subject you haven’t yet: Where the “crunchy” came from. When we started playing in 70’s, we came from a wargaming background. With no internet, there were few ways for new DMs to learn how to run properly. So, they approached D&D they only way they knew how, ”me vs them”. With this attitude, more than half of DMs were “killer” DMs, and there were piles of dead characters everywhere. Enter the crunchy. Rules were added to the game to provide guardrails for DMs so their games didn’t go off the deep end. Players now had a way to argue that something wasn’t fair. Fast forward to today. With the internet and a large player base, the killer DM is rare. So, it is now possible for players to find rules sets for faster, more wide-open games, with a small chance of running into DMs that will just kill their characters. However, there are games that have so many rules the guardrails have been narrowed to the point where the players dictate to the DM where the game is going. This makes killing characters practically impossible. Wait a minute… did I just describe Pathfinder and 5E? 😝😝 P.s. I think Deathbringer needs a new writer. I saw that lawyer joke coming a mile away. 😉
“How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy ?” Great video! “Crunchy” is often the next level of evolution in home brew games- more rules is supposed to be more fun (to accountants and Lawyers)
Some of the best sessions I had were during lunch in my duty section smoke shack. We weren't allowed to bring dice (too much like gambling) or rules, so it was all rulings and coin flips. Still managed to run an entire Stormbringer campaign.
100% yes. It took me some time to let go of my baggage and accept this, but sometime around the time of the release of 4e and Pathfinder I came to this same conclusion.
Definitely a fan of more rules-light systems. I feel like the argument that rules-light = no longevity is couched in a belief that the key to longevity is mechanical progression for characters. While that can help in some ways (I guess), there are other ways to make sure players keep coming back for more. Ways such as this wonderful thing called "fun."
I love, love, LOVE rules-light games! Any game where I can look at the character sheet and dice for ten seconds and immediately get the gist of how the game works inevitably ends up on my collector's radar. So far, my favorite system is the one used in Four Against Darkness. It's built as a solo dungeon crawl game, but has a section in the book about how to run the game for a group of players as a rules-light RPG. This section takes up only two pages of an already short digest-sized book, and explains how any actions the players attempt not covered by the few core rules can simply be handled through basic logic. Also, what I'm quickly realizing is the combat in 4AD is basically just a stripped down version of Savage Worlds. The players roll their Tier die (d6 in the core book) against an enemy's level, and if they meet or exceed that number, they deal 1 point of damage. They deal more damage in one attack if they roll a 6, which lets them reroll and add to their total. The more times the enemy's level can be multiplied into your total, the more damage dealt. For instance, rolling a total of 12 vs a level 4 enemy deals 3 damage. TL;DR: Four Against Darkness is pretty good, and you should try it.
One of my first games as a player used a light ruleset based on Savage Worlds and was in a setting based on Firefly. I did not like it too much, because I could not understand what my character is capable of, what our ship is capable of etc. Now, with some more experience I think I could enjoy it more, but that't my view after spending quite some time with heavier systems that give much more complete profile of the character (and also being a DM). Also, building overpowered characters is a game of its own, and sometimes it is fun and what's good about it is that you can do it in the breaks between sessions.
Well said! When I was younger I wanted a rule for everything. I loved when 2ad&d came out with The Complete xxx Guides never I wanted to do them "right". Now that I'm older I see the additional books and rules like walls and cages and I'm not happy at all. I like rules light and let's play quick. Excellent video and excellent points
I had to GM for a couple of literally blind people. The event organizers assigned me these players because of how rules light my game was. I picked up all those wordy traits from the character sheet and simplify them to their minimum expression and asked to player to remember 6 numbers. And the rest was pure fun.
I can't begin to thank you enough for this video. It is currently a topic of discussion in our group; we're at a point in our current 5e campaign where we are all at high level and combats are becoming a slog. I hope this information is valuable to many folks in gaming, both old and new.
I run D&D games for students at the school where l work, and I've been telling my co-host of the club this for years. Give a kid (especially a neurodivergent kid like I was) a 5e sheet with all the nonsense on it, and it all falls apart. They do not care how the crunch works, all they wanna do is steal the goblin's lunch money. I love crunch too, but sometimes ya just NEED rules light and it simply works more efficiently. Fantastic vid!
I have a neurological disability, and some of these games are insanely complicated. It's not at all "disability friendly". I get the impression that most people don't really play them as written. There's just too much stuff to keep track of.
@matthew7419 I deal with disabling chronic illness and fatigue snd brain fog are primary symptoms for me, plus I'm also likely ADHD. At 42, I'm just starting to dip my toe into TTRPG's. My brain just can't handle super crunchy systems, no matter how much I might be interested in them. I literally just can't process them, for multiple reasons. It all feels so overwhelming. Rules lite systems are going to be what will allow me to play, as I continue to delve into this hobby. For me, rules lite are the most accessible options.
Both have their place I think. I like rules light right up until you get to higher level play and outside dungeon delving. Like I really like acks or any other system that gives me as a GM tools to really run robust domain play.
Very well said. To this day, one of the best games I ever ran was a one shot using Tracy Hickman’s XDM system. I put the players in a situation where the characters thought they were in a dungeon trying to escape, but slowly I revealed that they were actually in a mall that the players were very familiar with… the game spanned from traditional fantasy, to horror, to modern action… it would have been impractical to make those leaps with a more traditional system, and on top of that the players would have been trying to maximize the math… with that system they were just trying to do something cool. You remember the sessions where people did something cool, not the ones where someone leverages their masters degree in accounting.
I feel the biggest key for a rules light rules set to work is to frontload the difficulty on the designers to make sure they not only made something fun and engaging, but works and is intuitive. Pathfinder 1e (and to a lesser extent 2e) are way crunchy and take forever to make a bunch of stats that are redundant or irrelevant for a character that will die in a couple hits. a rules light system with a few hard and fast rules will get more enjoyment and wont be dreading making another character because they can be created in 5 mins. Mork borg and its family of games are rather fun examples of this. I love making a new character in that with a few rolls.
Rules light systems having easier character generation greatly benefits their ability to get players playing and to reduce the sting of character death. Lengthy character creation can fatigue players and make them overly attached before the game even starts.
"But if I don't have a lot of rules how can I exploit them and power game?" For real though, I love the idea of rules light RPGs that don't crutch on having a bunch of skills or "buttons to press," as I put it. I tried running a game called "Lasers and Feelings" which is about as rules light as it gets: characters have one number which determines what you're good and bad at, you say what you want your character to do and roll a d6 and see how it goes. Unfortunately this kind of system sort of relies on players being creative with what they actually do. DM: "Okay, your space ship is being perused by the nefarious space pirate Captain Plunder Mc Skullbones, lasers are blasting your ship's shields, what do you do?!" Player1: "Can I attack?" DM: "Yeah sure I guess that makes sense." Player1: "I attack." DM: "Okay Player2, what do you do?!" Player2: "I attack." DM: "Alright, the pirates fire a nuclear torpedo at you, it's coming right for your ship and will surely blow it to smithereens if it collides! What do you do?!" Player1: "Shoot the torpedo." DM: "...Okay, Player2 what do you--" Player2: "I attack." I can't tell if the problem is I hang out with the least creative people on the planet who insist that flipping through spreadsheets actually helps with their immersion, or if I just suck as a GM and can't spark inspiration in anyone beyond "I use my numbers to win"
I would drill down into their responses with open ended questions. Describe how you attack the pirates? If the player doesn't want to elaborate, fill in the blanks for them, and make the players action shine.
I find that people who are familiar with RPGs (tabletop or otherwise) tend to be "DND-brained." They're just thinking about DPS, most effective action etc. I play with complete noobs and they come up with interesting attacks with a little prodding of "how." Though I find that's easier in a fantasy context, since people are usually aware of what the physical body can do when interacting with the environment. I can see that being a problem for spaceship combat, where one isn't really aware of what the spaceship can do besides firing whatever weapons it has. I find that what works best for players without much imagination is to start with a scenario where they literally can't just straight up attack, while constantly reminding them of the environment. Like humans with axes vs minotaur in some dungeon with a two-story room a chandelier, barrels, a pile of gold and a pit trap.
@@LeFlamel I definitely agree with the phrase “D&D-brained.” And the thing about the environment is a pretty good point. Sometimes I’m bad at articulating the specifics of an idea or situation because it already makes sense to me and therefore doesn’t require elaboration, so that’s something I could work on.
Longtime fan and lurking presence here! Great video as always, Prof! I used a rules-lite system I created to run not one but TWO long-term campaigns (2+ years) for my friends in seminary. Both were a blast! Now I use an even simpler system for my kids that involve them rolling two dice and adding them together (different sizes rolled depending on how "good" they are at whatever they want to attempt).
I agree! We recently began Dungeon World and I'm going to paraphrase a quote I read (or heard) somewhere that stated: Dungeon World is what is what D&D _should_ have been. And while I'm at it, West End Games Star Wars is _still_ the best Star Wars game.
Dragon warriors does not get enough love. My first FRPG before red box. 1985 now avaible on drivethrurpg. 48 and I was like a little boy at Christmas. Rules light, fast play deadly... You would love it.
I suppose technically there are people that prefer crunchy rules systems.... but why? I'm baffled. I was GM'ing a long-running Champions superhero RPG way back in the day, and I found that the longer the campaign went, the less I was enjoying it. By sheer chance, I one day completely ignored the dice rolls behind my GM screen and went with the result that was most fun at that moment (ie, not the results of the dice). No one double-checked me. Everyone was happy. I kept on doing it, and found that no one really cared how accurate and faithful I was being to the dice. No one. if anything, it allowed all the players to (gasp) dive more fully into their characters by not having to slow the game down to check stats and dice. I always let them roll their attack and damage dice, but those never had to be calculated or compared with a chart. They knew the number of dice they needed and I let them roll it and based on those results, I just let them have some percentage of success, which is exactly how PbtA plays. Playing rules light just lets you get to the fun part faster and stay in the fun part. I truly don't understand what sort of fun super heavy, complex charts and tons of math before, during, and after an attack provides a player or a GM. But I guess that's why I'm glad there are so many kinds of rules and playing systems. The people who are so clearly wrong need to be able to play games too.
I haven't found my perfect system yet. I do like the ideas of a rules-light system, and I have seen bits and pieces of my perfect system floating around. Yet nothing conclusive. I want a system in which: - I can play a mermaid that can swim in the sky.-Most OSR are based on human concepts and like, you can do anything a heroic human can do. But outrageous ideas are often not possible. - Play feels different for every character, and choices matter.-You can create anything you like in a rules-light system like FATE, but mechanically they all play the same: create an advantage, overcome, attack, defend; with details on stunts and aspects. In Pathfinder or D&D for comparison, every class feels unique to play, seperate from its flavor. - A progression system with things to look forward to each level.-Many OSR just give you extra numbers and maybe a new title. - The game is a player too.-Not everything can be made up, there are procedures to follow. And sometimes these procedures get in the way of players and GMs. This is about forcing a GM to roll on a random table to see what happens, or to see if the players escape the monster chase. The GM may be on the players' side, but the game forces a roll from the GM. This is also about setting up mechanical situations in which dread and excitement happens: needing to roll a 3 or higher to kill the enemy while rolling lower results in a TPK, or setting up a situation in which the healer might be 1 turn too late to heal you if they aren't creative in their turn. - And possibly, a game in which PCs have about 4 to 8 choices on what to do in a turn. Too many and you end up with the massive spell slot burden of D&D, too little and it's just attack or run away. I'd say 4 to 8 meaningful choices, yes. Improvising might be one of them. I have read about the "soft magic" system of the game Wicked Ones, in which there are no spell lists and only spell themes; requiring the player to make something up to use as magic. After wich a roll is made, with the DC increasing if: - the spell targets a higher-level enemy (rather than an on-level enemy or rather than an ally) - the spell has multiple targets or area-of-effect (rather than a single target) - the spell has an ongoing effect (rather than an instant effect) - the spell effect is impossible to achieve without magic (rather than being plausible to do for a martial character given reasonable time, or plausible for a group of martial characters to do) With these simple rules, you pick a spell theme and you can do whatever you want! As long as you succeed on the DC. So I know simplified spellcasting like this is possible in a roleplaying game. But there still are procedures to follow. I would love to see something like this system extended to other facets of play. And as of yet, I have not found such a thing. Any help?
I think there is a place for tactical TTRPGs, but I would agree at this point, I am starting to prefer lighter systems. I ran Ravenloft over the weekend with Basic Fantasy, and it was awesome. I ran another game about 2 weeks ago using Tiny Dungeon 2e (as recommended here) based on the song Don't Fear the Reaper, and it was a blast. My players had a ton of fun, and one of them even said that he thought it was the best game I had ran for them. For that group, I will likely keep using the Tiny D6 systems. Fast character creation, simple rules that can be taught in 5 minutes, and simple math for the attacks. I still like Basic Fantasy of some games, but the Tiny Dungeon game was the first one where I actually used zone based combat, and I really liked that. That one change made things so much faster.
Totally agree, you can customize your style for the group you have. Actually "my" UDT uses squres and nt combat zones because my players are more tactical
A very thought-provoking episode. I see where you're headed, but I think the biggest problem I have with (to paraphrase) "no rules, just right" is you lose consistency. But as you pointed out, it works for you and your group. I'm sure that after playing together for 30 years, you do, in effect, have a ruleset, but it's just institutionalized, sort of like the British non-Constitution. I hope I'm not coming off as critical - I enjoy the debate - and because of your channel, I've embraced games like Index Card RPG, Old-School Essentials, 5 Torches Deep, and Basic Roleplaying. One last thought - you mention the need to trust the DM. On the one hand, you can argue, "Why would you even play with a DM you don't trust.?" On the other hand, I think the main goal of 5E is to protect players from DMs, and if one accepts that premise, then I think that it's evidence that many players don't trust their DMs (yet still play anyway, for whatever reason.)
The more I GM, the more I agree with more simple rules. Outside of combat, it's a free-for-all among the players. It's great! Any player can voice any idea and make any check they can think of. During combat, when things should be more tense and faster, the rules slow the action to a crawl. All you need is that one player who licks his lips while perusing his list of 20 skills and spells, slowly deciding which one to use. Rather than gasps of surprise, you get yawns.
As a player not in a game I like to theory craft characters in a crunchy system. It is a lot of fun looking for synergies and powerful combos. However when in a game as a player or a DM I want to throw math rocks and eat chips. You can tally my vote squarely into the rules lite system.
I started with D100 and 3.5 and man it didn't hold well to the first for me, a lot more constricted, but that was the game everyone was playing at the time. With time I learned about OSR and loved the d20.
I've DMed pure narrative campaigns and crunchy, wargamy ones and they all worked. I've embraced the fact that rpgs can be played in many different ways.
@@Wilzekify I'm thinking something like the sleeping order. Every night, everyone has to decide who takes first shift, second shift, etc., then everyone rolls a perception check regardless if anything actually happens. Grinds the game to a halt every time. Much easier to make a random roll to see if anything happens and in which case, to who. We also use it as an opportunity to prompt inter-character roleplay. Same for the marching order and initiative. Not sure if this rule is codified in any book, but it happens at every table I've ever been at.
I was recently requested to run a d&d sessions for some friends but knowing they knew very little about tabletop RPGS period, I made a couple of alterations to the stats and shrunk the skill list down from its quite intimidating 18 options to 5 and tried to streamline the process for them. The end result was they were able to be on-boarded much faster and enjoy themselves without needing to familiarise themselves with multiple pages worth of rules but if they wanted to check something out there were simple and intuitive options available for them.
Great video. One observation. The greatest thing about D&D was not the mechanics...it was the lore. All those cool monsters and different character classes and modules and worlds to spark your imagination. That's where the game shines. The thing that makes role playing games unique is that you can do anything. Your imagination is the only limit. So any system that lets you do that AND gives you tools and resources to stimulate your imagination is leaning into what makes role playing games great.
My good man, what you, Runehammer and Scotty have been doing for the hobby, surpasses anything Wizards has done in 25 years. I hope more young players relax a little, or a lot, and take this advice to heart.
My system uses a dice pool of d10s with a difficulty chart. Roll your pool for the required stat, beat the number, success! Meet the number? Barely succeed, see car alley sequence you referenced. Sequence of actions in a short time span? Multiple successes from the same pool roll. Zero is always a failure. Combat is simply opposed pool rolls, no bonuses to add because that's what the pool is for. Ties go to the defender. Sheilds give bonus dice to your defense pool. Static damage on weapons and spells is default (though I do include dice types for the folks that really want them). Cast a spell? Level of the spell is the number you need on the die 1-9, with cantrips (which I call innate) require no roll. Roll as many dice from your pool as you want, to increase chance of success. Want to cast multiple spells in a round? Keep going until you run of out dice in your pool. And then I have a host of optional rules for groups that want to spice things up a bit, like spell exhaustion and wild magic. Or having to gain skills in an order that makes logical sense (you have to earn that flying spin attack through hard work). Similar idea for learning new spells. Xp to advance is equal to the level you are trying to get to. Get 1 xp for anything your level or lower, and each level higher gives one more xp plus sometimes bonuses for bosses.
I have found the happy middle in Open Legend. Options for people that want to explore thematic character concepts. Crunchy enough to prime the pumps for people that don't know what else to do but say "I attack." Light enough to have a clean "I want to do X"-"Okay, roll a Y" back and forth. And it combines my favorite under-used D&D optional rule- proficiency dice -with my favorite part of Savage Worlds- Exploding Dice.
1. Talking about these sorts of games without even mentioning Barbarians of Lemuria is bordering on being a minor warcrime. Trust me, you'll love it. The entire spellcasting system is a two-page spread and the target number is always the same. 2. When people say that rules-light systems can't support campaign play, what they really mean is that these systems don't support in-depth character progression. You are absolutely correct that many groups will have plenty of fun (potentially for decades) without needing to see their numbers constantly go up...but I think this objection does lend itself to a more fleshed out response than "my group does it just fine". I'd love to see a video on best practices for using rules-light systems for campaign play and I have some thoughts on the topic to contribute: 2a. Since the PC numbers in crunchier systems tend to increase at the same rate as those of the monsters or the numbers corresponding to the challenges being undertaken, the progression is, arguably, illusory--advancement can be represented by describing similar challenges in a more dramatic way or by simply using more fearsome minis to represent your generic monster statblocks (a few sessions ago you faced 8hp 12ac goblins but now that you've gotten more powerful you are facing 8hp 12ac gnolls). 2b. There are other ways to show progression such as gaining new professions, new equipment, new NPC contacts, etc.
Illusory progression is a good point, but honestly I feel like progression in crunchy games is like a thief robbing you and then selling it back to you. Unless its magic, physical deeds which anyone can attempt IRL get locked behind feats or shackled by rigid action economy modeling it badly. I think another issue is that long term progression becomes problematic with a singular character anyway. A lot of trad games have near unkillable PCs. At some point they'll have accomplished their goals and need to be retired if they haven't been killed. But mechanical progression allows more "game" to get milked out of each character. One thing I think ICRPG gets completely right is that characters having abilities tied to gear allows it to be more easily lost, so there are non-lethal setbacks that characters have to recover from, which can extend the lifespan of a campaign, but I don't think many people have the stomach for that. To me that better matches the up beats and down beats of a narrative.
Don't let tables get in the way of a good story!! I LOVE some of the flavor WFRP brings in with their critical tables, but honestly, it's a LOT. PDM on point as always
I do have a lot of fun with rules light systems. We made a system with my friends back in highschool that we ran for a summer camp of 90 kids distributed into groups of 4-5. Three stats from 1-20. You want to scale a wall? Roll under your strength. Want to absorb a blow by a minotaur? Roll under your constitution. Want to cast a spell? Roll under mind. It was great, because everyone understood right away what they needed to do and how their character could help out. For longer term games, I do prefer crunchier systems. Since I play with most of my players long-term, and most of them are willing to dive into the rules, we get past the "reference the character sheet for everything" phase pretty quickly. I do want to do something about initiative though...
We love rules-light TTRPGs. As we stream twice every week we have a whole selection of games that we play regularly, semi-regularly and every now and then. Apart from our weekly game (Traveller) a lot of the others have ended up being rules-light, or games that we've thrown together at home in a couple of hours and then play for numerous sessions. So much better than dealing with crunchy game after crunchy game.
I love the channel, and I can definitely see groups this would be good for. I may try a more rules-light system for my next game. But when I'm a player, half the fun is thinking about what choices I will make as I level up my character. I hit a hit of dopamine when I find a cool rules interaction that synergizes my abilities.
As a statistic-minded math-nerd I cannot disagree more with your idea of 'fun'. But I appreciate you listing that it is what works for YOUR table and not 'the right way to play'. That said, don't forget they're RPGs. Not just RPs.
I was wondering, if you have every tried the Cepheus Engine fantasy game, Barbarian. The Cepheus Engine is based on the system used in Traveller, and uses 2d6. Also, Savage Worlds, whose motto is 'Fast, Furious, Fun!'
@YoriTheHuman yes. Thank you. I had to put the phone down for a second. I was going to add that the gm has ultimate discretion and can do as he pleases. Example. Has a dwarf fighter pc that was also a blacksmith. A good one, too. I only made him roll when creating high level stuff or while in combat. ( he had quick fixer or some ability like that). During downtime it was too tideious to have him roll for each blacksmith check. And his modifiers where high as hell, so what eves. Dwarves are good at smiting anyway.
@@calebhebert2733 Of course, and since I have at the table a player character that, using your example, is really good at blacksmith stuff, I would give him a 13 DC for rarities and a 7 for more simple forges, and that's enough. Only the info my brain really need.
I like rules that will keep things consistent; if magic can put out fires today, it should be able to put out fires tomorrow (unless there's a calendar-based magic that fluctuates with the seasons or the positions of the moon, but you get my point). The rules do two things for me: preserve the consistency required for verisimilitude and prevent any I-shot-you-nuh-uh-you-missed arguments. Everything after that needs to justify its existence.
I feel like the right balance of crunch and fluff makes a system easier to learn for beginners. If you have no concept of what a roleplaying game is, and depending on what kind of person you are, you might have a hard time conceptualizing what you can't and can do in the game, which leads to a sort of analysis paralysis. With that little bit of crunch in there, new players have something to grasp on to, a sort of structure to follow. This especially goes for newer GMs. Japanese games, from my experience, strike this balance very well. They usually kinda feel like board games with roleplaying, which isn't a bad thing. It makes them very approachable and accessible to newcomers, and great for pick-up and play. Rules light, but with enough data and structure to guide you along. Completely rules light, i feel, requires a lot more work to make work, because it's so free form it can be hard to know where to even start. Meanwhile if a game is too crunchy, you risk losing yourself in the rules and bookkeeping. Rules light, but with a side order of crunch. That's my ideal. Sword World 2.5 strikes this balance for me.
You should check out the Solo/Co-Op system from Two Hour Wargames called "Warrior Heroes, Adventures in Talomir" -- it doesn't even need a Game Master! It's a 2d6 system with a main stat called "Reputation" and three Skills called Fit (all things physical), People (all things people skill related) and Savvy (all things related to fixing things, lockpicking and so on). Everything is done with 2d6 Challenge rolls or dice pool rolls, you have two health states -- either you're good, or you're Out of the Fight. It's meant to have a solo-play NPC party you manage, and as a player even in co-op mode there's no need even a GM since the system lets you spontaneously create your own adventure, resolve NPC interactions and everything.
Every time my game design starts getting too crunchy and granular, I thumb through EZD6, ICRPG, or watch a couple of your videos. I want there to be meaningful decisions with character creation and gameplay tactics, but not at the cost of speed and playability.
I am myself an ol' grognard and have been running games "off the cuff" for many years. I have never had any complaints, and we always have a great time! I even used to DM in the RPGA and my loosie goosie interpretations were never argued! Rule of cool. All Hail the You Tube Algorithm Gods!
I like it. I do think though that a competent rules light GM only comes with experience. As a newbie GM I like to have the guidance of the rules. Though, having said that, I have homebrewed alternative rules for the systems that I have played within a couple of sessions because I didn't like a particular rule, or something wasn't covered, so maybe I'm on the path to being more free-form already lol.
There's allot of satisfaction in building characters with crunch. Whether it's seeing your character punch a couple levels above their weight class, the joy in discovering how to make a thematic character from other media, or looking at the multi class abomination and having a laugh out of making it a cohesive character. That said crunch at the table sucks. SWADE is a good system for character build crunch, but simple rules.
I agree that it’s generally more fun going light on the rules (we’re playing a houseruled OSE now), but I also like variety. Savage Worlds is pretty heavy on rules and procedures, but it’s still a lot of fun, but in a different way, at least with players that are interested in learning the rules. There’s also some things that I want rules for, especially in dungeon crawling adventures. Stuff like the dungeon turn, encumbrance, torch timers. I use none of that in SW, but in OSE I do. Variety is fun in itself, even in rules.
Honestly, facts. I think anybody arguing 'it takes trust' is just running up against the fact that most groups of friends aren't suited to play games together or have issues that they're ignoring out of convenience. If you need rules to act as a contract between you all you've already lost.
extremely underrated comment. My playgroup is barely holding on since they all want different things out of the game and rules are a bureaucracy keeping other playstyles in line.
One of the most fun and memorable gaming session I was ever in was a Risus Viking thing a friend ran. The final combat ended up even more intense than any crunchier system because it went back and forth so quickly. It came down to a final roll that put our side as victors (even though some of us were dead and that was that). Rules-Light games can be a blast.
Fantastic video. Powered by the apocalypse systems tend to be rules light and I love them for it. I look forward to trying some of the others you've mentioned here.
This philosofy has led me to put hundreds of hours and still courting into crafting my own system. And I gotta say I've never been the happiest with it, I can run it smoothly and my players have told me quite a few times they enjoy playing it. Having a frame base helps with planning, winging it helps with flow when players start doing unpredictable things. In my opinion.
This!! So much this!! Excellent content as always. This is the video I needed, Professor DM just made my day!! This is a fundamental truth: rules light role-playing game systems always make possible to play more game in less time. More crunch makes a game feel slower. Recently I have been running a homebrew version of D&D 3.0, we are about to start a new campaign using the same system and everybody at the table is having fun with it. Nobody is allowed to look at the Player's Handbook, including myself. Without too much book-keeping, the game went better. Our game ran better this way, because it was faster, more fluid and more fun. Nobody was arguing. Everybody creates their characters and I just wing it. There is only three possible target numbers I use on the fly. 7 is Easy, 10 is Medium and 13 is Hard. The simplified combat rules made my players love the combats and I myself had lots of fun too. I want to spend my afternoons kicking ghoul's ass in a putrid dungeon, not looking up rules. And the sessions are very old school in tone since it's insta-kill at 0 HP. Thanks Professor for inspiring lots of GMs, like myself. Bless you!
For me it depends on what Im in the mood for. Sometimes I want a game to be a bit more crunchy. Other times I want it to be rules light. Most of the time I do a combination of both and the games I run fall into a "medium" rules category. I do tell my players all the time "feel free to look beyond your character sheet. If there is something you want to do..tell me what it is and we'll find a way for you to do it." Its amazing how many rulings Ive had to make up on the spot because the player was doing something super creative. Those actually end up being some of my favorite sessions to run.
I love this, I play and DM in the Giant In the Playground Forums, and oftentimes games stall with endless pointless discussion because the forums are plague with scores of optimizers who find more joy in min max theory than actual play. In my Table top games the issue is often the complete opposite: lack of knowledge from the players on the 100 splatbooks and rules. So this past year I moved to a "tell me what you want to do, I'll give you the crunch" system with my tabletop players. It works wonders.
Love this: -Three hits -No initiative, aggressor or players start -Any action is d20 with DM judge -Trained in skill = advantage or bonus -Stats optional
As someone completely new to TTRPG's and who deals with disabling chronic illness where fatigue and brain fog are primary symptoms and probable ADHD, rules lite systems feel like they're going to be the most accessible for me. Fantasy me would love to delve into crunchy systems. Reality me just literally can't process it all, much to my dismay. I'm still working on finding the systems that work best for my limitations but also have themes I'm actually interested in. Just starting to dip my toe into this hobby. Thanks for such helpful perspectives!
i prefeer something more in-between. definitely not as crunchy as , for example, pathfinder, but also less freeform than your games. Have some structure, don't stop the game to luck for rules, an improvise on stuff not planned in the rules you remeber from heart. I also enjoy having some boardgame-y tactician thing.
(Circa 1977) I fondly remember playing the basic set and then going over to AD&D. Playing the games after school in our Junior High cafeteria. We always kept it simple in our games and used rules like a salad bar. We took what was needed to play a campaign and didn’t use the rest. However, going to campaign to campaign the rules we played changed some but it was simple and fun. Not bad for 12 and 13 years olds. I remember some of the teachers and staff pitching a fit because we were playing D&D and the Principal came in and said keep going and watched us for about 15 minutes. After that we had no more issues. I ran into him several years ago and thanked him for letting us play. I asked what he said to the teachers. He said he told them that they were not fighting, smoking cigarettes or pot and were reading books and to leave the kids alone.
Wise Principal (mine played AD&D in the 80s).
Swedish viewer here. I would just like to express appreciation toward the professor for how his pronounciation of "Mörk Borg" is consistently improving.
Thank you.
Love the reference/homage to Moldvay Basic in the name “Morgyn Metalfwolf” in the DB character sheet… Long live Morgan, Sister Rebecca, and Silverleaf!
Can’t really pull that card after SK marketed Cy Borg, justifying the common pronunciation mistake. 🤷🏻♂️
One of my favorote game systems is Traveller. Despite the thousands of rule books published for this game over the last 45 years, it all boils down to rolling 2d6 and adding a skill modifier, trying to beat a number…usually: 8.
Great game. Great character creation system!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1The only character creation system I know of in which your character can die during creation.
Also very good is Cepheus Engine, and Hostile by Paul Elliot Zozer games.. I don’t think many know of this.. but I really wish they did..
I love CT...except for chargen. 😝
@@tomkerruish2982 It's great. I've actually used the detailed character creation system (with resolution for each year individually) as something of a stand-alone mini-game. Dying because you rolled a snake eyes when your Naval ensign is resolving his year of Shore Duty is just part of the game. More annoying if your group is trying to roll up characters and start a campaign.
I teach 20 students aged 12-13yrs in a digital (computer) class and am using a rules light version of D&D to immerse the players in a survival setting where their characters have crash landed on the mysterious Skull Island in the Bermuda Triangle. Players have to work together in tribes similar to Lord of the Flies to find food, shelter and explore the island for useful items to allow them to escape the island/be rescued. As in your video I ask them what they want their character to do and I assign a 1-20 difficulty/number they need to succeed. Characters get one action per class and tribe leaders get 2 actions. The setting plays out like a mixture of Lost, Indiana Jones and King Kong where players dont know what dangers they will come across but could include wild animals, traps, alien technology or a tribe already living on the island. I reward students for completing set assignments with benefits in the game such as advantage or an extra action and punish the students who are not putting in effort in their work by 'freezing' their character in the game by taking away any actions for that lesson. Works great and keeps even the most wayward students focused on finishing their assignment work! We play over 10wks, about 2-3 lessons per wk. Character sheets have basic D&D stats and a profession slot which each player rolled using a d20. These ranged from barber, mechanic and Plumber to Navy Seal and homeless person. If they can justify their character has a profession that might assist in any task, they get advantage on their roll. I am open to any ideas, no matter how farfetched or unlikely they may be... One character has a lightsaber but no kyber crystal to make it work, another has a rusty gun with no bullets. They might find what they need in the wreckage of the plane at the bottom of the lagoon just off the coast of Skull Island... if they can figure out how to get to it!
I want to take your class!
Love it, I used dnd and shadowrun to teach English as a second language for over a decade. My last two years teaching (2018-2019) I moved into rule-less storytelling. We played all kind of scenarios using verbal and written communication.
Awesome work@@Recontramojado rpgs in general are a totally untapped resource and powerful motivator all schools could be using to teach all kinds of content.
Rules light games are great, and I appreciate everyone that I've ever played. That said, crunchy systems certainly have their place too. I find with new players, sometimes a crunchy system gives them insight into abilities they would never think of themselves. It's almost as if the crunch (spellls,skills, feats) help to shape their idea of what is possible.
Sure, imagination is our most wonderful ability. However, I find too often that sometimes people need a little prod to help branch that imagination out some.
Perhaps....
Yeah, I think that is sometimes the source of inspiration the players need when they start roleplaying. I run a campaign with the Fantasy Flight Star Wars system where a single dice roll most of the time has two to four outcomes and therefore the players are somehow forced to use their imagination for the additional outcomes of the dice roll (like advantage, disadvantage, triumph and despair). But still they keep forgetting to use major mechanics of the game like fate points and aiming. While maneuvers like aiming should be used like 80 % of the time, I do not think that players would think about them in a rules light system either. On the other hand the Star Wars system has so many game mechanics that you should think of, it gets confusing. Like you have absorption that reduces damage taken and you have defense that makes it harder to hit you. While the absorption part is pretty easy to use, as the player simply has to subtract it from the damage the GM rolled, the absorption mechanic has to be taken into account from the opposite side of the dice roll. The NPC has the defense stat, but the PC has to roll extra dice for it. That is simply slowing the game down because of the extra communication between GM and player.
Professor DM - Apostle of the good news, as always 👍
On a summer camp when I was about 14 me and my roommates reslized that we all play RPGs. No one brought any dice. We used paper-rock-scissor. Two wins for a player with hard task, two for GM with easy and one in normal cases. Storry was good so it was enough.
Sounds awesome!
When I started DMing for 5e, I was drowning in stats, charts, and just absolute stress. After discovering indie games and rules-lite mechanics (thanks @dungeoncraft), I threw all the crunch out the window and discovered something rare and elusive, fun!
Amen. If the DM is not having fun the game dies.
I was DMing at stores for few years. I love that 5e streamlined the rolls, got rid of tHaco, opened up the classes to all races. I hated having 7 people at the table telling ME the Dm the stats of the monster they are fighting.
Generally take the books as a framework. It’s up to the DM to come up with ways to call the story, if the player wants to use a certain rule than by all means do it, otherwise I’m going to roll something and keep moving.
If you thought 5e was overwhelming, stay away from 3.5e, where a whole page and a half is dedicated to explaining grappling.
For me, 5e is a breeze to run to the point where it's a little boring.
@@blackmage471 i think it depends on if you're looking for startegy, puzzles, or roleplay the most. I enjoy strategy and so prefer something "crunchy" to satisfy my need for difficulty. Some people just want to roleplay and so seem to prefer games with light rules. I still enjoy rp but it's more of a way to justify the game mechanics in my mind, rather than being the end desire for playing in the first place
@@blackmage471 5e is fristrating to me because it doesn't really do any of those three things super well, but is "okay" at all of them. It's definitely too easy for my taste
Rules-light games are fine for doing what they do but, sometimes, you want a game with more power to make your character mechanically unique. Special abilities, racial powers, skills, etc, to add to your toolbox when you encounter an obstacle. The difference between Gun X and Gun Y in Shadowrun might come down to the brand, the scope, the trigger enhancement, and so forth - making the weapon feel mechanically different even though it's just another gun. Finding the build of powers and items that work best for your character can be a lot of fun - a minigame unto itself. Not to mention that being able to do something that your character alone can do makes you feel cool and special.
I have run many rules-light games over the years, and one of my groups' favorite systems is fairly rules-light (though it still has skills and special abilities). It allows players to make a wide variety of characters but the rules left make certain everyone is balanced against each other and the challenges appropriate to their power level. One of the groups' favorite parts about the game is the freedom to imagine and construct special abilities to strive toward and improve over time.
"City of Mist" is a fantastic rules-light system but it still uses mechanics to balance characters and encounters.
If all I have to do is write "10HP" on a piece of paper and hand it out, then I have no need to buy the game you're pitching. Which, sure, that's a great benefit in the hobby - that at the end of the day I could play with nothing but our imaginations - but we play systems because we want that framework to not only contribute to balance but to challenge players to accomplish their goals within the rails of the system. Just as I could forgo any board game just by grabbing some rocks for markers and rolling dice to see who gets to finish-line first but rules make that process a lot more interesting.
Lastly, rules help answer the question of whether a PC can do a thing, or why they can't, so that their success isn't always down to GM fiat.
Good points and this is why I use a lot of ideas from Index Card RPG to create characters. I think up what cool stuff I want the PC to do, assign stats, saves, etc. Then I pick 3-4 abilities/powers that make THIS character unique to the others. I steal from5e, PF2e and others. My Monk for example, has flurry of blows which allows him to spread his damage roll among any nearby targets. My Spell Sword can add 1d4 damage of a type from a spell he knows to his melee sword strikes. I need some built in features for my PCs to make them fun, but I also keep it simple.
Customization is a huge draw for me and why I bother with any crunch at all.
You can customize in a rules light game too. Just suggest special moves your character could do to your GM, and he'll probably approve them!
Seems like you pretty much completely missed the point of the video
@@whitepanth3r More likely, you completely missed the point of my post. Do better.
Ezd6 and death bringer really opened my eyes to how enjoyable rules light systems are. They just flow better and it just fits the way my friends and I like to play.
Thank you. EZd6 is incredibly well written. I'm a huge fan.
My group has been playing since mid 90's, we started with 2e D&D. Our current favorite game is Dread. I think the natural tendency is towards less rules because it lets us concentrate on the fun and ideas just like we used to play when we were kids. We don't play to become expert savants, we play to enjoy with each others' shenanigans. Greetings from México, Profesor!
Hello, Mexico! I love Dread as well. Played it last weeekend.
Thrull? Eres tú?
Dread is my go-to for one-shots and new players. Great times!
Rules Light all the way babbyyyyy!!! ohhh this video was 🔥! Agree on every point. I started in 5e and absolutely hated the amount of rules I had. With 0 TTRPG experience outside of 5e, I immediately felt like I had 0 authority or room to tell a story or run a game. I was just there to draw maps and place tokens basically. EZD6 was my first Rules Light game and I was completely blown away by the freedom for both sides of the table. It's fantastic.
But also, I personally find trying to design a rules light system incredibly entertaining. I've always enjoyed trying to conjure up something complex then whittle it down to the bare minimum and have it still run efficiently. Part of that probably comes from a long history in manufacturing and trying to always make everything faster/smoother/cheaper/easier. But man oh man is it satisfying when you come up with a single little mechanic that covers so much.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. EZd6 is a GREAT game. Share this video so it reaches more people.
Ever since I played 2e back in the 80's I imagined that anyone could completely make a simple role playing game without any books or anything once you had some sort of concept of the core mechanic (roll to succeed, apply damage/success). Kids should be creating their own games rather than purchasing things from WOTC. Imagine the creativity we could see from kids unleashed like that!
I think one of the strengths of rules light that isn't ever addressed is that crunch added via homebrew has way more of an effect than in an already crunchy system. Throwing some stats onto vehicles for a rules light game for example and you are going to be able to much more strongly drive the game in that direction than an already cruchy system even when going very modest on the detail.
I say this a lot. "It's far easier to add complexity to a game, than it is to take it out."
I like crunchy elements, but in specific places. So I love taking really simple games and homebrewing in the nitty gritty in the sections that excite me and my table.
That's actually a great way to look at it. I'm running a couple of Fate sessions atm and it surprised me just how much you can change the game by just creating something and attaching to aspects to it :P
Good point.@@DoctorLazers
Probably the most difficult thing when going rules light is consistency. Making sure you use the same AC and HP on a creature or object every time (unless there is a good reason). My players do call that out if it happens.
Simple way for complex rules to fit in your system- attach them to stuff like class features or special items.
Ie- if you want shields to block damage, make an item that does that rather than having it be a core rule
That's the key word for me: accessible. The hardest part of my job is convincing other therapists that RPGs are worth picking up with clients--a job made infinitely harder by the complexity of many systems. So in the end I had to just write my own damn book 🤣.
I was in the MacDeath game that had no character sheets! I recall you saying something like, "I'm going to try something here..." as you passed out the post its! It went great! The game was fun, fast paced, and didn't lack at all without sheets!
This video is right on time for me. I love that you mentioned space combat. I've been spending over a year trying to shoehorn starfinder space combat into our groups 5e homebrew game. We finally got to the space combat. We started at 8:30pm and after all the explaining of the rules, and only 5 rounds of combat it was already midnight and we had to stop. Too much to figure out!
I was literally sitting on my lunch break hovering over my GMs notebook, wondering how to fix it when I got the notification of your new video. What a great reminder! Thanks, Professor Dungeon Master!
Traveller's hex map space combat is surprisingly parsimonious. As much as I like 3.X systems, such as Pathfinder & Starfinder, they are inherently too crunchy for my table. As they are essentially miniature skirmish systems more so than roleplaying/storytelling. That said, my friends and I played 3.X for more than ten years--just gets harder as life progresses and everyone has less time to game.
@@eddygreen3631 what's 3.X?
I think it’s all a matter of preference. I like having some mechanical crunch to help me feel grounded in the world. However, it can go too far sometimes where you feel boxed in and not leaving much room for improvisation. The beauty with RPGs is that there are so many ways to play.
Also one thing about the older systems that weren't as 'crunchy' is a lot of things were done as you suggest - it was just assumed that the DM or GM would come up with some roll on the spot (if a roll was needed) and let the player try. They didn't necessarily need 'mastery in acrobatics' to try theatrical things, if they wanted to try. And the DM would come up with some threshold based on the character (and, probably, gear - heavily armored is gonna have a harder time vaulting over tables and swinging from ceiling beams while slashing at their foes than a lightly armored character). It was common-sense based. Then skills were introduced and everything tended towards "do you have that skill? What's your score? OR do you have to do an unskilled check?
AD&D certainly changed this trajectory for the world’s most famous RPG. Greg Stanford’s games were always rules heavy on the couch, starting with RuneQuest, which predated AD&D.
I'm a fan of both rules light and crunch depending entirely on the particular game and what we're looking to get out of it. I do think that it's possible for a system to be too rules-lite (in which case what am I paying for) just as a system can be too crunchy. There's also a lot to be said about how the rules are written that can make an easier system overly difficult to run and a crunchy system easy.
True.
Additional fun-fact: One of the most timeless RPGs ever created (I maintain it is an RPG) is very rules light. I'm thinking of _Diplomacy_ where the players literally run great powers using a system that is not very rules-heavy but is very effective at doing what it does and the PnP version really can't be improved upon by adding more technical crunch as to, say, armies, fleets, technology, skill trees, and the like.
I suppose Diplomacy is much like an RPG. Personally I despise the game because you can be put at a huge disadvantage or out of contention to win a multi hour game by turn 2 or 3 through no fault of your own. Just not for me, but your comparison is very cool.
You're not wrong@@bossman4799 If initial alliances are bad for you it's over quick then you're just on the sidelines effectively and it's exceptionally hard to come back (it can be done and long-timers will point to the times it happens but those are extremely rare).
It's a pitfall of simple rules in a way. My other comments in this try to highlight the tradeoffs: as he said in his video there's no 'right' or 'incorrect' here just preferences.
I've had that experience you speak of in Diplomacy tho and you're right it sucks because the game goes on and you spend it dead in the water. The worst is still having a unit so you have to keep at it but it's frustrating.
@@Porphyrogenitus1 Yeah, my friends wanted to play it a few times (we mostly play Axis and Allies) and each time I got screwed over turn 2 by two people simultaneously. It really wasn’t fun to sit there knowing I had no shot at winning and everyone else just wanted to use me for backup when attack. I see what you mean by rules light having some pitfalls. I run Call of Cthulhu and if I don’t remember a rule exactly or at all because it doesn’t come up often, I just say “do this” then move on or just play loose with distance to make things go faster.
Solid video. Mork Borg has the right idea with character sheets: a mandatory skull and raven. They're classic symbols for a reason. I prefer the term "efficient" to rules light. For the group I run, their system of choice is Castles and Crusades. C&C (with the Siege Engine) plays like AD&D with the proficiencies and skill checks fixed, class abilities more consistent and logical (finally a sweet level 1 thief), and saving throws well-defined--all of this done in a single mechanic that boils down to a roll vs a target number. You can port the Siege engine in to any version of TSR D&D, and it instantly fixes any of the issues I ever had to address as a DM.
About how easy it is for a beginner to use rule light system, I'd like to add a cons : rules also help players know what they can do. I agree that lighter rules allow for more freedom when you already know what you intend to do, but when you don't... Take a look at your character sheet for options!
I'd say rules help a GM, not necessarily a player, and they might make a player unsure about thinking outside the box.
Then again, you need more experience as a DM to gauge the difficulty of a dice roll without consulting a chart in chapter 6, section 11, subsection 1.
One of the things I like the most about professor DM's channel are his practical examples for those situations.
It depends on what it is rules light on. Rarely is it a con unless it is something beyond the scope of the game. Most situations out of rules can be broken down into a series of steps within rules.
Do you have an example of what you mean?
TL;DR - I agree with the point made by drillerdev4624. Sometimes, rules are very constraining, and limit out of box thinking. As DM/GM, you need a lot experience to gauge difficulty and to not make silly errors (like rolling unnecessarily, because more rolls = more fun [sarcasm]) but having a player have freedom to describe something crazy, and then adjudicating it fairly gives pretty much everyone at the table a true feeling of liberty.
I liked the professor's ninja example. In 5e, to play a ninja, you'd need to make some sort of hybrid of monk/rogue, or even a sorcerer. And you'd need throwing stars (which are probably a reflavor of darts). And then when you get into combat, you know that your stars do 1d4+X damage, and have a specific range, and you have set abilities, etc...But it could be really fun, if you're playing a ninja to suddenly (as a player) yell out "I throw a smoke bomb at my foe!" and then the game stops as you all have to think about whether that is even possible, and does this character even have a smoke bomb? What would be the effects? Etc... Rather than getting bogged down in rules based on "well, you only have your ninja stars, and they do a set amount of damage. Can they do a different amount of damage? Well, that's out of my hands as a DM - look at the rules."
Rules can also be really constraining for a DM/GM. It can be incredibly frustrating when a player breaks the game, and then points out that the way the game is broken is right there in the rules. You have to master the rules more than the players, and it becomes this arms race, rather than having confidence to just veto something.
Great points Prof DM and clemgerad. One con I have experienced as a DM is in EZD6, managing magic and miracles, without much guidance. Having more rules in theory gives confidence because you know what you can do and how it works… that is, if you can find them :-)
There’s great points in both sides of this issue I feel. I have enjoyed the trend toward simplifying things, and look forward to seeing how the pendulum continues to swing in years to come.
Ultimately it is about picking the system that you and the players vibe with for the campaign or session at issue. It’s great to have more and more choices!
I love both with a passion. Different systems for different experiences, for different tables. As long as the system is honest about what it is
I'm slowly melting rules away from my dnd game. Don't tell my players.
Rules light for one shots, Rules heavier for a campaign. That's the rule I've used over the years and it works well for me.
Since none were bought up, there are definite advantages to crunchier systems, especially for a longer term campaign or higher time investment game.
Because a lot of these systems have the specific rules for things laid out by the book themselves, it's very easy to just flip to a page or just flip through pages, find something that piques your interest and then throw that into whatever is going on at the time in a mechanically unique manner.
This puts a lot less pressure on the GM mentally, which can be better for newer GMs with less of a creative background or if they're tired or somesuch.
Advancement, while slower, can feel much realer and much more satisfying in heavier systems. There's something satisfying about facing a long-standing foes minions sessions apart and going from a knife's edge fair fight to mowing them down several at a time, or taking a spell you'd take rounds to cast previously and insta-frying someone with it.
Another major benefit of crunchier systems is more granularity, meaning that you can get higher highs, closer calls and lower lows. A success at a test by just one in a d100 system feels much more impactful than a success by one in a d6 system, for example.
If you want my recommendation for crunchy but still fast systems, try Legend of the Five Rings Fourth Edition or the Early Fantasy Flight Systems like DeathWatch or Only War.
I love rules-light systems, I've been championing them for ages, but I have two issues with them. First is character progression; I like the fantasy of going from scared peasant to hardened warrior to valiant hero to wuxia-inspired immortal demigod over the course of play. BECMI gives me a series of systems to make that happen. I'm not sure how to make that happen without those systems.
The other issue is that I love rolling dice. Dice are fun, I want to throw a handful of dice now and again, but I'm not sure how to get that experience without a lot of rules. It seems to me that most rules-light systems want to scrap all the DnD dice entirely, and play with only a d6
I play with a d20.
ICRPG?
Even Gygax said so, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek (but candid) remark in either a TD article of in the DMG (I don't have my stuff handy to check but I know this for definite) that it was a "secret" that you didn't really need rules.
(Of course in other contexts he's also known for thumping rules. But you get the point - it's also somewhat well known that those original campaigns were rules-light [didn't play by the eventual 'published rules'] and the published rules were sort of an after-effect so people would have them and also, eventually, for tournament play). House rules and ignoring some things (like the weapon vs AC armor tables, which were cool but complex to have to refer to) were the norm.
That said even some 'rules-light' systems are better than others, and sometimes they cause more problems than they solve, but in general that's an impact of the table (as is the problem of rules-heavy leading to the classic 'rules lawyer' gamer of olden times).
Gary Gygax: “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.”
Yup that quote!@@EpicEmpires-pb7zv
I've really been trying to get my players on board with a rules-light for our next campaign, which is still probably over a year away. They are pretty resistant and really want Pathfinder 2E. It's hard being a fast-and-loose rules-light dm with a group of crunch-loving players.
Crunch opens a wide gate for players who love being rules lawyers. Not sure if that resembles any folks in 8:25 your group. My experience is that rules lawyers always suck the joy out of games. On the other hand, some folks just love the detail, learning systems, understanding how all the many parts make a whole. That’s great, and those folks are typically not going to do rules light for long.
Honestly, it's a clash of style and if the players don't want to play the rules-light system then you're better off finding another group who suits your DMing style.
I personally prefer crunch, I like my RPG to have Game to it and gamer brain sees big number and goes happy lol
Hello Prof. DM. I would like to touch on a subject you haven’t yet: Where the “crunchy” came from.
When we started playing in 70’s, we came from a wargaming background. With no internet, there were few ways for new DMs to learn how to run properly. So, they approached D&D they only way they knew how, ”me vs them”. With this attitude, more than half of DMs were “killer” DMs, and there were piles of dead characters everywhere.
Enter the crunchy. Rules were added to the game to provide guardrails for DMs so their games didn’t go off the deep end. Players now had a way to argue that something wasn’t fair.
Fast forward to today. With the internet and a large player base, the killer DM is rare. So, it is now possible for players to find rules sets for faster, more wide-open games, with a small chance of running into DMs that will just kill their characters.
However, there are games that have so many rules the guardrails have been narrowed to the point where the players dictate to the DM where the game is going. This makes killing characters practically impossible.
Wait a minute… did I just describe Pathfinder and 5E? 😝😝
P.s. I think Deathbringer needs a new writer. I saw that lawyer joke coming a mile away. 😉
“How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy ?” Great video! “Crunchy” is often the next level of evolution in home brew games- more rules is supposed to be more fun (to accountants and Lawyers)
Speaking as an accountant, rules-light RPGs are way more fun.
As a lawyer and "rules lawyer" I generally agree, but not all crunch is created equal.
See the problem is I like my games to be fast and my downtime to be super crunchy.
Some of the best sessions I had were during lunch in my duty section smoke shack. We weren't allowed to bring dice (too much like gambling) or rules, so it was all rulings and coin flips. Still managed to run an entire Stormbringer campaign.
100% yes. It took me some time to let go of my baggage and accept this, but sometime around the time of the release of 4e and Pathfinder I came to this same conclusion.
We all often learn the hard way.
Definitely a fan of more rules-light systems. I feel like the argument that rules-light = no longevity is couched in a belief that the key to longevity is mechanical progression for characters. While that can help in some ways (I guess), there are other ways to make sure players keep coming back for more.
Ways such as this wonderful thing called "fun."
I love, love, LOVE rules-light games! Any game where I can look at the character sheet and dice for ten seconds and immediately get the gist of how the game works inevitably ends up on my collector's radar.
So far, my favorite system is the one used in Four Against Darkness. It's built as a solo dungeon crawl game, but has a section in the book about how to run the game for a group of players as a rules-light RPG. This section takes up only two pages of an already short digest-sized book, and explains how any actions the players attempt not covered by the few core rules can simply be handled through basic logic.
Also, what I'm quickly realizing is the combat in 4AD is basically just a stripped down version of Savage Worlds. The players roll their Tier die (d6 in the core book) against an enemy's level, and if they meet or exceed that number, they deal 1 point of damage. They deal more damage in one attack if they roll a 6, which lets them reroll and add to their total. The more times the enemy's level can be multiplied into your total, the more damage dealt. For instance, rolling a total of 12 vs a level 4 enemy deals 3 damage.
TL;DR: Four Against Darkness is pretty good, and you should try it.
One of my first games as a player used a light ruleset based on Savage Worlds and was in a setting based on Firefly. I did not like it too much, because I could not understand what my character is capable of, what our ship is capable of etc. Now, with some more experience I think I could enjoy it more, but that't my view after spending quite some time with heavier systems that give much more complete profile of the character (and also being a DM).
Also, building overpowered characters is a game of its own, and sometimes it is fun and what's good about it is that you can do it in the breaks between sessions.
Good points. You and your group need to find the system that is right for you...at the right time.
Well said! When I was younger I wanted a rule for everything. I loved when 2ad&d came out with The Complete xxx Guides never I wanted to do them "right".
Now that I'm older I see the additional books and rules like walls and cages and I'm not happy at all. I like rules light and let's play quick. Excellent video and excellent points
The game master is free to make these kinds of decisions in any game system, not just rules light.
Rulings vs rules.
And stretching... Role-playing vs roll-playing.
Great video!!!❤ Thanks so much!
V
I had to GM for a couple of literally blind people. The event organizers assigned me these players because of how rules light my game was. I picked up all those wordy traits from the character sheet and simplify them to their minimum expression and asked to player to remember 6 numbers. And the rest was pure fun.
I can't begin to thank you enough for this video. It is currently a topic of discussion in our group; we're at a point in our current 5e campaign where we are all at high level and combats are becoming a slog. I hope this information is valuable to many folks in gaming, both old and new.
I run D&D games for students at the school where l work, and I've been telling my co-host of the club this for years. Give a kid (especially a neurodivergent kid like I was) a 5e sheet with all the nonsense on it, and it all falls apart. They do not care how the crunch works, all they wanna do is steal the goblin's lunch money. I love crunch too, but sometimes ya just NEED rules light and it simply works more efficiently. Fantastic vid!
I have a neurological disability, and some of these games are insanely complicated. It's not at all "disability friendly". I get the impression that most people don't really play them as written. There's just too much stuff to keep track of.
@matthew7419 I deal with disabling chronic illness and fatigue snd brain fog are primary symptoms for me, plus I'm also likely ADHD. At 42, I'm just starting to dip my toe into TTRPG's. My brain just can't handle super crunchy systems, no matter how much I might be interested in them. I literally just can't process them, for multiple reasons. It all feels so overwhelming. Rules lite systems are going to be what will allow me to play, as I continue to delve into this hobby. For me, rules lite are the most accessible options.
My friends and I are getting so much put of Basic Roleplaying. It's such a slick system.
Both have their place I think. I like rules light right up until you get to higher level play and outside dungeon delving. Like I really like acks or any other system that gives me as a GM tools to really run robust domain play.
Very well said. To this day, one of the best games I ever ran was a one shot using Tracy Hickman’s XDM system. I put the players in a situation where the characters thought they were in a dungeon trying to escape, but slowly I revealed that they were actually in a mall that the players were very familiar with… the game spanned from traditional fantasy, to horror, to modern action… it would have been impractical to make those leaps with a more traditional system, and on top of that the players would have been trying to maximize the math… with that system they were just trying to do something cool. You remember the sessions where people did something cool, not the ones where someone leverages their masters degree in accounting.
Your MacDeath example was at GenCon 2022. I was at that table. Great game!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for supporting the channel.
I feel the biggest key for a rules light rules set to work is to frontload the difficulty on the designers to make sure they not only made something fun and engaging, but works and is intuitive. Pathfinder 1e (and to a lesser extent 2e) are way crunchy and take forever to make a bunch of stats that are redundant or irrelevant for a character that will die in a couple hits. a rules light system with a few hard and fast rules will get more enjoyment and wont be dreading making another character because they can be created in 5 mins. Mork borg and its family of games are rather fun examples of this. I love making a new character in that with a few rolls.
Rules light systems having easier character generation greatly benefits their ability to get players playing and to reduce the sting of character death. Lengthy character creation can fatigue players and make them overly attached before the game even starts.
"But if I don't have a lot of rules how can I exploit them and power game?"
For real though, I love the idea of rules light RPGs that don't crutch on having a bunch of skills or "buttons to press," as I put it. I tried running a game called "Lasers and Feelings" which is about as rules light as it gets: characters have one number which determines what you're good and bad at, you say what you want your character to do and roll a d6 and see how it goes. Unfortunately this kind of system sort of relies on players being creative with what they actually do.
DM: "Okay, your space ship is being perused by the nefarious space pirate Captain Plunder Mc Skullbones, lasers are blasting your ship's shields, what do you do?!"
Player1: "Can I attack?"
DM: "Yeah sure I guess that makes sense."
Player1: "I attack."
DM: "Okay Player2, what do you do?!"
Player2: "I attack."
DM: "Alright, the pirates fire a nuclear torpedo at you, it's coming right for your ship and will surely blow it to smithereens if it collides! What do you do?!"
Player1: "Shoot the torpedo."
DM: "...Okay, Player2 what do you--"
Player2: "I attack."
I can't tell if the problem is I hang out with the least creative people on the planet who insist that flipping through spreadsheets actually helps with their immersion, or if I just suck as a GM and can't spark inspiration in anyone beyond "I use my numbers to win"
I would drill down into their responses with open ended questions. Describe how you attack the pirates? If the player doesn't want to elaborate, fill in the blanks for them, and make the players action shine.
@@kotor610 “by pressing the shoot button”
I find that people who are familiar with RPGs (tabletop or otherwise) tend to be "DND-brained." They're just thinking about DPS, most effective action etc. I play with complete noobs and they come up with interesting attacks with a little prodding of "how." Though I find that's easier in a fantasy context, since people are usually aware of what the physical body can do when interacting with the environment. I can see that being a problem for spaceship combat, where one isn't really aware of what the spaceship can do besides firing whatever weapons it has. I find that what works best for players without much imagination is to start with a scenario where they literally can't just straight up attack, while constantly reminding them of the environment. Like humans with axes vs minotaur in some dungeon with a two-story room a chandelier, barrels, a pile of gold and a pit trap.
@@LeFlamel I definitely agree with the phrase “D&D-brained.” And the thing about the environment is a pretty good point. Sometimes I’m bad at articulating the specifics of an idea or situation because it already makes sense to me and therefore doesn’t require elaboration, so that’s something I could work on.
@@BrenGamerYTI'm exactly in the boat, especially with environmental detail in my head, so I feel you!
Longtime fan and lurking presence here! Great video as always, Prof! I used a rules-lite system I created to run not one but TWO long-term campaigns (2+ years) for my friends in seminary. Both were a blast! Now I use an even simpler system for my kids that involve them rolling two dice and adding them together (different sizes rolled depending on how "good" they are at whatever they want to attempt).
I agree! We recently began Dungeon World and I'm going to paraphrase a quote I read (or heard) somewhere that stated: Dungeon World is what is what D&D _should_ have been. And while I'm at it, West End Games Star Wars is _still_ the best Star Wars game.
Dragon warriors does not get enough love. My first FRPG before red box. 1985 now avaible on drivethrurpg. 48 and I was like a little boy at Christmas. Rules light, fast play deadly... You would love it.
I suppose technically there are people that prefer crunchy rules systems.... but why? I'm baffled. I was GM'ing a long-running Champions superhero RPG way back in the day, and I found that the longer the campaign went, the less I was enjoying it. By sheer chance, I one day completely ignored the dice rolls behind my GM screen and went with the result that was most fun at that moment (ie, not the results of the dice). No one double-checked me. Everyone was happy. I kept on doing it, and found that no one really cared how accurate and faithful I was being to the dice. No one. if anything, it allowed all the players to (gasp) dive more fully into their characters by not having to slow the game down to check stats and dice. I always let them roll their attack and damage dice, but those never had to be calculated or compared with a chart. They knew the number of dice they needed and I let them roll it and based on those results, I just let them have some percentage of success, which is exactly how PbtA plays.
Playing rules light just lets you get to the fun part faster and stay in the fun part. I truly don't understand what sort of fun super heavy, complex charts and tons of math before, during, and after an attack provides a player or a GM. But I guess that's why I'm glad there are so many kinds of rules and playing systems. The people who are so clearly wrong need to be able to play games too.
I haven't found my perfect system yet. I do like the ideas of a rules-light system, and I have seen bits and pieces of my perfect system floating around. Yet nothing conclusive.
I want a system in which:
- I can play a mermaid that can swim in the sky.-Most OSR are based on human concepts and like, you can do anything a heroic human can do. But outrageous ideas are often not possible.
- Play feels different for every character, and choices matter.-You can create anything you like in a rules-light system like FATE, but mechanically they all play the same: create an advantage, overcome, attack, defend; with details on stunts and aspects. In Pathfinder or D&D for comparison, every class feels unique to play, seperate from its flavor.
- A progression system with things to look forward to each level.-Many OSR just give you extra numbers and maybe a new title.
- The game is a player too.-Not everything can be made up, there are procedures to follow. And sometimes these procedures get in the way of players and GMs. This is about forcing a GM to roll on a random table to see what happens, or to see if the players escape the monster chase. The GM may be on the players' side, but the game forces a roll from the GM. This is also about setting up mechanical situations in which dread and excitement happens: needing to roll a 3 or higher to kill the enemy while rolling lower results in a TPK, or setting up a situation in which the healer might be 1 turn too late to heal you if they aren't creative in their turn.
- And possibly, a game in which PCs have about 4 to 8 choices on what to do in a turn. Too many and you end up with the massive spell slot burden of D&D, too little and it's just attack or run away. I'd say 4 to 8 meaningful choices, yes. Improvising might be one of them.
I have read about the "soft magic" system of the game Wicked Ones, in which there are no spell lists and only spell themes; requiring the player to make something up to use as magic. After wich a roll is made, with the DC increasing if:
- the spell targets a higher-level enemy (rather than an on-level enemy or rather than an ally)
- the spell has multiple targets or area-of-effect (rather than a single target)
- the spell has an ongoing effect (rather than an instant effect)
- the spell effect is impossible to achieve without magic (rather than being plausible to do for a martial character given reasonable time, or plausible for a group of martial characters to do)
With these simple rules, you pick a spell theme and you can do whatever you want! As long as you succeed on the DC.
So I know simplified spellcasting like this is possible in a roleplaying game. But there still are procedures to follow. I would love to see something like this system extended to other facets of play. And as of yet, I have not found such a thing.
Any help?
I think there is a place for tactical TTRPGs, but I would agree at this point, I am starting to prefer lighter systems. I ran Ravenloft over the weekend with Basic Fantasy, and it was awesome. I ran another game about 2 weeks ago using Tiny Dungeon 2e (as recommended here) based on the song Don't Fear the Reaper, and it was a blast. My players had a ton of fun, and one of them even said that he thought it was the best game I had ran for them. For that group, I will likely keep using the Tiny D6 systems. Fast character creation, simple rules that can be taught in 5 minutes, and simple math for the attacks. I still like Basic Fantasy of some games, but the Tiny Dungeon game was the first one where I actually used zone based combat, and I really liked that. That one change made things so much faster.
Totally agree, you can customize your style for the group you have. Actually "my" UDT uses squres and nt combat zones because my players are more tactical
A very thought-provoking episode. I see where you're headed, but I think the biggest problem I have with (to paraphrase) "no rules, just right" is you lose consistency. But as you pointed out, it works for you and your group. I'm sure that after playing together for 30 years, you do, in effect, have a ruleset, but it's just institutionalized, sort of like the British non-Constitution. I hope I'm not coming off as critical - I enjoy the debate - and because of your channel, I've embraced games like Index Card RPG, Old-School Essentials, 5 Torches Deep, and Basic Roleplaying. One last thought - you mention the need to trust the DM. On the one hand, you can argue, "Why would you even play with a DM you don't trust.?" On the other hand, I think the main goal of 5E is to protect players from DMs, and if one accepts that premise, then I think that it's evidence that many players don't trust their DMs (yet still play anyway, for whatever reason.)
I actually agree with you.
The more I GM, the more I agree with more simple rules.
Outside of combat, it's a free-for-all among the players. It's great! Any player can voice any idea and make any check they can think of.
During combat, when things should be more tense and faster, the rules slow the action to a crawl. All you need is that one player who licks his lips while perusing his list of 20 skills and spells, slowly deciding which one to use. Rather than gasps of surprise, you get yawns.
Into the Odd, Electric Bastionland, and Mythic Bastionland are all pretty rules lite as well from Chris Macdowall.
Great rules. Brilliant guy. I will mention Mythic Bastionland in the next video.
As a player not in a game I like to theory craft characters in a crunchy system. It is a lot of fun looking for synergies and powerful combos. However when in a game as a player or a DM I want to throw math rocks and eat chips. You can tally my vote squarely into the rules lite system.
I prefer the crunchiness of 3.5
Its horrible. The first WOW tabletop emulator.
I started with D100 and 3.5 and man it didn't hold well to the first for me, a lot more constricted, but that was the game everyone was playing at the time. With time I learned about OSR and loved the d20.
I'm glad 3.5 exists for the "math masochists" out there, but dude, you couldn't PAY me to slog through that tangled mess of modifiers again.
I am about to start DMing for the first time a homebrew game for my 5 kids, and your channel has been the most helpful resource. Thanks, Professor! 👍
I've DMed pure narrative campaigns and crunchy, wargamy ones and they all worked. I've embraced the fact that rpgs can be played in many different ways.
I think it's kinda telling that the more rules you eliminate from 5e, the more fun it becomes.
Which rules, except those really mundane ones which people commonly ignore like weight encumbrance or keeping track of food do you eliminate?
@@Wilzekify
I'm thinking something like the sleeping order. Every night, everyone has to decide who takes first shift, second shift, etc., then everyone rolls a perception check regardless if anything actually happens. Grinds the game to a halt every time.
Much easier to make a random roll to see if anything happens and in which case, to who. We also use it as an opportunity to prompt inter-character roleplay.
Same for the marching order and initiative.
Not sure if this rule is codified in any book, but it happens at every table I've ever been at.
This is the way
lol - I'm too old for complex mechanics too. Takes far too long. Life ain't getting longer. I need to get to the meat while I still have teeth!! 😂
I was recently requested to run a d&d sessions for some friends but knowing they knew very little about tabletop RPGS period, I made a couple of alterations to the stats and shrunk the skill list down from its quite intimidating 18 options to 5 and tried to streamline the process for them. The end result was they were able to be on-boarded much faster and enjoy themselves without needing to familiarise themselves with multiple pages worth of rules but if they wanted to check something out there were simple and intuitive options available for them.
Great video. One observation. The greatest thing about D&D was not the mechanics...it was the lore. All those cool monsters and different character classes and modules and worlds to spark your imagination. That's where the game shines.
The thing that makes role playing games unique is that you can do anything. Your imagination is the only limit. So any system that lets you do that AND gives you tools and resources to stimulate your imagination is leaning into what makes role playing games great.
My good man, what you, Runehammer and Scotty have been doing for the hobby, surpasses anything Wizards has done in 25 years. I hope more young players relax a little, or a lot, and take this advice to heart.
Hey Prof DM!? Would you ever post a 120 min session of you running MacDeath?
My system uses a dice pool of d10s with a difficulty chart. Roll your pool for the required stat, beat the number, success! Meet the number? Barely succeed, see car alley sequence you referenced.
Sequence of actions in a short time span? Multiple successes from the same pool roll.
Zero is always a failure.
Combat is simply opposed pool rolls, no bonuses to add because that's what the pool is for. Ties go to the defender. Sheilds give bonus dice to your defense pool. Static damage on weapons and spells is default (though I do include dice types for the folks that really want them).
Cast a spell? Level of the spell is the number you need on the die 1-9, with cantrips (which I call innate) require no roll. Roll as many dice from your pool as you want, to increase chance of success. Want to cast multiple spells in a round? Keep going until you run of out dice in your pool.
And then I have a host of optional rules for groups that want to spice things up a bit, like spell exhaustion and wild magic. Or having to gain skills in an order that makes logical sense (you have to earn that flying spin attack through hard work). Similar idea for learning new spells.
Xp to advance is equal to the level you are trying to get to. Get 1 xp for anything your level or lower, and each level higher gives one more xp plus sometimes bonuses for bosses.
I have found the happy middle in Open Legend.
Options for people that want to explore thematic character concepts.
Crunchy enough to prime the pumps for people that don't know what else to do but say "I attack."
Light enough to have a clean "I want to do X"-"Okay, roll a Y" back and forth.
And it combines my favorite under-used D&D optional rule- proficiency dice -with my favorite part of Savage Worlds- Exploding Dice.
1. Talking about these sorts of games without even mentioning Barbarians of Lemuria is bordering on being a minor warcrime. Trust me, you'll love it. The entire spellcasting system is a two-page spread and the target number is always the same.
2. When people say that rules-light systems can't support campaign play, what they really mean is that these systems don't support in-depth character progression. You are absolutely correct that many groups will have plenty of fun (potentially for decades) without needing to see their numbers constantly go up...but I think this objection does lend itself to a more fleshed out response than "my group does it just fine". I'd love to see a video on best practices for using rules-light systems for campaign play and I have some thoughts on the topic to contribute:
2a. Since the PC numbers in crunchier systems tend to increase at the same rate as those of the monsters or the numbers corresponding to the challenges being undertaken, the progression is, arguably, illusory--advancement can be represented by describing similar challenges in a more dramatic way or by simply using more fearsome minis to represent your generic monster statblocks (a few sessions ago you faced 8hp 12ac goblins but now that you've gotten more powerful you are facing 8hp 12ac gnolls).
2b. There are other ways to show progression such as gaining new professions, new equipment, new NPC contacts, etc.
I do like Barbarians of Lemuira and own it.
Illusory progression is a good point, but honestly I feel like progression in crunchy games is like a thief robbing you and then selling it back to you. Unless its magic, physical deeds which anyone can attempt IRL get locked behind feats or shackled by rigid action economy modeling it badly.
I think another issue is that long term progression becomes problematic with a singular character anyway. A lot of trad games have near unkillable PCs. At some point they'll have accomplished their goals and need to be retired if they haven't been killed. But mechanical progression allows more "game" to get milked out of each character.
One thing I think ICRPG gets completely right is that characters having abilities tied to gear allows it to be more easily lost, so there are non-lethal setbacks that characters have to recover from, which can extend the lifespan of a campaign, but I don't think many people have the stomach for that. To me that better matches the up beats and down beats of a narrative.
Don't let tables get in the way of a good story!! I LOVE some of the flavor WFRP brings in with their critical tables, but honestly, it's a LOT. PDM on point as always
I do have a lot of fun with rules light systems. We made a system with my friends back in highschool that we ran for a summer camp of 90 kids distributed into groups of 4-5. Three stats from 1-20. You want to scale a wall? Roll under your strength. Want to absorb a blow by a minotaur? Roll under your constitution. Want to cast a spell? Roll under mind.
It was great, because everyone understood right away what they needed to do and how their character could help out.
For longer term games, I do prefer crunchier systems. Since I play with most of my players long-term, and most of them are willing to dive into the rules, we get past the "reference the character sheet for everything" phase pretty quickly. I do want to do something about initiative though...
We love rules-light TTRPGs. As we stream twice every week we have a whole selection of games that we play regularly, semi-regularly and every now and then. Apart from our weekly game (Traveller) a lot of the others have ended up being rules-light, or games that we've thrown together at home in a couple of hours and then play for numerous sessions. So much better than dealing with crunchy game after crunchy game.
I love the channel, and I can definitely see groups this would be good for. I may try a more rules-light system for my next game. But when I'm a player, half the fun is thinking about what choices I will make as I level up my character. I hit a hit of dopamine when I find a cool rules interaction that synergizes my abilities.
As a statistic-minded math-nerd I cannot disagree more with your idea of 'fun'.
But I appreciate you listing that it is what works for YOUR table and not 'the right way to play'.
That said, don't forget they're RPGs. Not just RPs.
Nailed it!!! EZD6 for the win!!!
There is only one rulelawyer around the table : the DM !
Well, I guess it should be so. But my players don't think so.
Most don't!
I was wondering, if you have every tried the Cepheus Engine fantasy game, Barbarian. The Cepheus Engine is based on the system used in Traveller, and uses 2d6. Also, Savage Worlds, whose motto is 'Fast, Furious, Fun!'
I REALLY love Savage Worlds and agree it’s great. That said, it’s crunch has been wearing on me as of late.
I want to save this video and share it in my groups every 4 months.
Thanks! Do it!
I do a mix of everything. I do love the crunch of pf2e, but sometimes it just gets in the way
This is why I mitigate the crunch of the system by just eliminating some things and keeping others.
@YoriTheHuman yes. Thank you. I had to put the phone down for a second. I was going to add that the gm has ultimate discretion and can do as he pleases. Example. Has a dwarf fighter pc that was also a blacksmith. A good one, too. I only made him roll when creating high level stuff or while in combat. ( he had quick fixer or some ability like that).
During downtime it was too tideious to have him roll for each blacksmith check. And his modifiers where high as hell, so what eves. Dwarves are good at smiting anyway.
@@calebhebert2733 Of course, and since I have at the table a player character that, using your example, is really good at blacksmith stuff, I would give him a 13 DC for rarities and a 7 for more simple forges, and that's enough. Only the info my brain really need.
@@YoriTheHuman correct
I like rules that will keep things consistent; if magic can put out fires today, it should be able to put out fires tomorrow (unless there's a calendar-based magic that fluctuates with the seasons or the positions of the moon, but you get my point). The rules do two things for me: preserve the consistency required for verisimilitude and prevent any I-shot-you-nuh-uh-you-missed arguments. Everything after that needs to justify its existence.
I feel like the right balance of crunch and fluff makes a system easier to learn for beginners. If you have no concept of what a roleplaying game is, and depending on what kind of person you are, you might have a hard time conceptualizing what you can't and can do in the game, which leads to a sort of analysis paralysis. With that little bit of crunch in there, new players have something to grasp on to, a sort of structure to follow. This especially goes for newer GMs. Japanese games, from my experience, strike this balance very well. They usually kinda feel like board games with roleplaying, which isn't a bad thing.
It makes them very approachable and accessible to newcomers, and great for pick-up and play.
Rules light, but with enough data and structure to guide you along.
Completely rules light, i feel, requires a lot more work to make work, because it's so free form it can be hard to know where to even start.
Meanwhile if a game is too crunchy, you risk losing yourself in the rules and bookkeeping.
Rules light, but with a side order of crunch. That's my ideal.
Sword World 2.5 strikes this balance for me.
You should check out the Solo/Co-Op system from Two Hour Wargames called "Warrior Heroes, Adventures in Talomir" -- it doesn't even need a Game Master!
It's a 2d6 system with a main stat called "Reputation" and three Skills called Fit (all things physical), People (all things people skill related) and Savvy (all things related to fixing things, lockpicking and so on). Everything is done with 2d6 Challenge rolls or dice pool rolls, you have two health states -- either you're good, or you're Out of the Fight. It's meant to have a solo-play NPC party you manage, and as a player even in co-op mode there's no need even a GM since the system lets you spontaneously create your own adventure, resolve NPC interactions and everything.
Every time my game design starts getting too crunchy and granular, I thumb through EZD6, ICRPG, or watch a couple of your videos. I want there to be meaningful decisions with character creation and gameplay tactics, but not at the cost of speed and playability.
I am myself an ol' grognard and have been running games "off the cuff" for many years. I have never had any complaints, and we always have a great time! I even used to DM in the RPGA and my loosie goosie interpretations were never argued! Rule of cool. All Hail the You Tube Algorithm Gods!
I like it. I do think though that a competent rules light GM only comes with experience. As a newbie GM I like to have the guidance of the rules. Though, having said that, I have homebrewed alternative rules for the systems that I have played within a couple of sessions because I didn't like a particular rule, or something wasn't covered, so maybe I'm on the path to being more free-form already lol.
Always been a BASIC guy. Still running it since 1983.
Cool!
There's allot of satisfaction in building characters with crunch.
Whether it's seeing your character punch a couple levels above their weight class, the joy in discovering how to make a thematic character from other media, or looking at the multi class abomination and having a laugh out of making it a cohesive character.
That said crunch at the table sucks. SWADE is a good system for character build crunch, but simple rules.
I agree that it’s generally more fun going light on the rules (we’re playing a houseruled OSE now), but I also like variety. Savage Worlds is pretty heavy on rules and procedures, but it’s still a lot of fun, but in a different way, at least with players that are interested in learning the rules.
There’s also some things that I want rules for, especially in dungeon crawling adventures. Stuff like the dungeon turn, encumbrance, torch timers.
I use none of that in SW, but in OSE I do. Variety is fun in itself, even in rules.
Honestly, facts.
I think anybody arguing 'it takes trust' is just running up against the fact that most groups of friends aren't suited to play games together or have issues that they're ignoring out of convenience. If you need rules to act as a contract between you all you've already lost.
extremely underrated comment. My playgroup is barely holding on since they all want different things out of the game and rules are a bureaucracy keeping other playstyles in line.
One of the most fun and memorable gaming session I was ever in was a Risus Viking thing a friend ran. The final combat ended up even more intense than any crunchier system because it went back and forth so quickly. It came down to a final roll that put our side as victors (even though some of us were dead and that was that).
Rules-Light games can be a blast.
As long as the DM is fair and consistent with the rulings I don't mind simple mechanics.
Fantastic video. Powered by the apocalypse systems tend to be rules light and I love them for it. I look forward to trying some of the others you've mentioned here.
I'm about to talk about Zoo Mafia. It''s PBTA but with a very cool bonus die. Stay tuned.
This philosofy has led me to put hundreds of hours and still courting into crafting my own system. And I gotta say I've never been the happiest with it, I can run it smoothly and my players have told me quite a few times they enjoy playing it.
Having a frame base helps with planning, winging it helps with flow when players start doing unpredictable things. In my opinion.
This!! So much this!! Excellent content as always. This is the video I needed, Professor DM just made my day!! This is a fundamental truth: rules light role-playing game systems always make possible to play more game in less time. More crunch makes a game feel slower. Recently I have been running a homebrew version of D&D 3.0, we are about to start a new campaign using the same system and everybody at the table is having fun with it. Nobody is allowed to look at the Player's Handbook, including myself. Without too much book-keeping, the game went better. Our game ran better this way, because it was faster, more fluid and more fun. Nobody was arguing. Everybody creates their characters and I just wing it. There is only three possible target numbers I use on the fly. 7 is Easy, 10 is Medium and 13 is Hard. The simplified combat rules made my players love the combats and I myself had lots of fun too. I want to spend my afternoons kicking ghoul's ass in a putrid dungeon, not looking up rules. And the sessions are very old school in tone since it's insta-kill at 0 HP. Thanks Professor for inspiring lots of GMs, like myself. Bless you!
For me it depends on what Im in the mood for. Sometimes I want a game to be a bit more crunchy. Other times I want it to be rules light. Most of the time I do a combination of both and the games I run fall into a "medium" rules category. I do tell my players all the time "feel free to look beyond your character sheet. If there is something you want to do..tell me what it is and we'll find a way for you to do it." Its amazing how many rulings Ive had to make up on the spot because the player was doing something super creative. Those actually end up being some of my favorite sessions to run.
I'm glad you play lots of games. Support small companies!
I love this, I play and DM in the Giant In the Playground Forums, and oftentimes games stall with endless pointless discussion because the forums are plague with scores of optimizers who find more joy in min max theory than actual play. In my Table top games the issue is often the complete opposite: lack of knowledge from the players on the 100 splatbooks and rules. So this past year I moved to a "tell me what you want to do, I'll give you the crunch" system with my tabletop players. It works wonders.
Love this:
-Three hits
-No initiative, aggressor or players start
-Any action is d20 with DM judge
-Trained in skill = advantage or bonus
-Stats optional
As someone completely new to TTRPG's and who deals with disabling chronic illness where fatigue and brain fog are primary symptoms and probable ADHD, rules lite systems feel like they're going to be the most accessible for me. Fantasy me would love to delve into crunchy systems. Reality me just literally can't process it all, much to my dismay. I'm still working on finding the systems that work best for my limitations but also have themes I'm actually interested in. Just starting to dip my toe into this hobby. Thanks for such helpful perspectives!
Thank you. My son has ADHD and so do several of my student players. In my experience, rules-lite works best. Peace and love.
i prefeer something more in-between. definitely not as crunchy as , for example, pathfinder, but also less freeform than your games. Have some structure, don't stop the game to luck for rules, an improvise on stuff not planned in the rules you remeber from heart.
I also enjoy having some boardgame-y tactician thing.