After getting inspired by Swords & Wizardry and reading some 2e stuff, I've been tinkering with a ten level system that is fairly rules light.  And it is wonderful.  Instead of making up a bunch of unnecessary rules and worrying about how everything interacts and creating rules for unusual situations, I can lay down blanket rules and allow the DM to tinker with them as he sees fit.  For instance, in 3e, you had penalties for using weapons and armor that you're not proficient with (-4 nonproficiency penalty, you took your armor class as a penalty to attack rolls, and wizards had to worry about arcane spell failure).  In what I'm writing, you simply can't use them.  So if the wizard says, "I want to wear plate armor," the rules say no because wizards don't wear plate armor.

Part of me feels a little guilty because it feels lazy, but another part of me feels much freer to concentrate on the game itself because I'm not fretting about edge cases.

Now you're speaking my language.  My own D&D hack looks like this:

- 10 levels.
- 3 classes (warrior, rogue, spell-caster)
- only warriors get better at fighting as they level up, only rogues get better at "adventuring skills" as they level up (as per the Lamentations of the Flame Princess "Specialist" class), only spell-casters get more magic as they level up.
- any class can use any weapon or armor, but there might be penalties for this that I will come up with on the fly.  Trying to sneak around in plate armor isn't going to work very well
- no races besides human
- one saving throw value as per Swords & Wizardry

...and I don't feel lazy in the least about it!

To be fair, I should probably add that my idea of "rules light" is significantly crunchier than most other gamers' ideas.  I'm using a lot of 3e-isms in the game (such as attacks of opportunity, Fort/Ref/Will savings throws, and a slew of classes), but I'm drastically paring everything down to the bone (all saving throws and skill checks are DC 15, for instance, and races are classes).

Fair enough; as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right.

Rules light can be super nifty given the right group and attitude.

Personally, through playing various types of games/campaigns, I found that my own issues were more with certain rules not adding anything to play (or just not working) and sometimes entire systems being orthogonal to the stated playstyle in the text than with rules-heavy systems themselves.

Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

Quote from: kryyst;485226Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

Can you give an example of this?

For me, "rules-light" is Moldvay B/X.  Enough to get you started and have a scaffolding to fall back on, but then you are on your own.  If I ever get some of these rules ideas out of my head and onto paper (or pdf), I will be shooting for a 64pg book, at most.

Amusingly enough my rules light D20things has classes that are additive to their theme. A warrior gets better at fighting, a wizard at magic, a rogue at dodging (instead of soaking) attacks. A cleric gets divine abilities. You want a paladin? You build him from the right additions of classes.  Want a Ranger as you see him? Ditto. 1E Rangers are a combinations of all four, 2E with their more wilderness focus--rogues, fighters, and a touch of druid (which is already a touch of cleric and fighter.) want a modern day specialist op type sneaky ranger? Rogue and Warrior.

Rules lite? Yes. Simple? Yes. Magic is freeform and open.

Of course Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings exist with unique twists but still recognizable as D&D like. At the same time unique class combos exist for them--mostly flavor text. Like Runeknights, and Foehammers.

Quote from: kryyst;485226Why is it that so many people's verions of rules light come down to "Because I said so!"

The strength of rules light to me has always been about less rules providing for way more options.   I just don't see the point in rules light because options are locked down.

I'm not sure how this is any different from games with much heavier rules systems.  In 3e, why do you take cross-class skills at two-for-one ratio?  In 4e, why does my character need a high Constitution skill to learn to wear armor?  In GURPS, why do I have a shock penalty after being hit?  In nWoD, why does armor give a penalty on attack rolls rather than preventing damage?

You can give justifications for these things, but it ultimately boils down to: because I said so.  The main difference is that in rules light systems, the answer seems to be "because it's easier than the alternative."  (Why is there a single saving throw progression in Swords and Wizardry?  Because it's easier than tracking the five or so different saving throw categories.)

The thing about Basic D&D is it still contains a lot of stuff that could be streamlined. There is a lot of detail in some places, often in the form of ad-hoc rules and tables and huge gaps in other areas. Do We really need that many saves? Is there not a cleaner, more elegant way to do thief skills?

For me a really functional example of a rules light game is Barbarians of Lemuria. It's just at least rules light as Basic D&D but with the careers, boons and flaws it just seems to cover a lot more ground and produce better rounded characters. It's a marvel of design economy.

Of course it's not a fair comparison. There would not be a BoL without D&D.

I have never understood the resistance to the OD&D/AD&D etc. save system.

"it's too vague" isn't an argument point; I can make the case that saving versus fireball could and should fall under all three sort of handwavy generality saving categories of 3/3.5/4e

Nah, it's just too dissociated.

Quote from: Peregrin;485249Nah, it's just too dissociated.

Win!

Perhaps I should have clarified Non-D&D based rules light.   In D&D Rules light Mages can't wear armour - because I said so.  In more advanced versions of D&D mages can wear armour - at a penalty and can pick up a sword - at a penalty (be it numerical or a feat towards it).

In thinking it over my statement isn't towards rules light, like the title of the thread.  Just D&D.  D&D far to often comes down to because I said so - so fuck logic.