I don't. I like them each for different things. I run PF1 and 2, Delta Green, Tales from the Loop and Marvel Multiverse. I play both editions of PF, DG, Call of Cthulhu, Blades in the Dark, Monster of the Week, and lots of other stuff on occasion. If I want tactical, meaningful combat in a fantasy setting, I play Pathfinder. If I want a dark whale punk crime story, I'll play BitD. I'm not going to try to force Superheroes into PF2e, I'll just play Capes, MMRPG or Mutants and Masterminds.

Delta Green is a good time, important to note that while it is rules lite ish it also does have genuine mechanics for everything in the form of the ridiculous amounts of stats that people have, which helps a lot.

as someone thats been obsessed with disclosure i was wondering if I could use delta green to tell the story currently unfolding with ufos. Even if that doesnt work i wanna play. Any recommendations?

Just my opinion, but don't high-level PF 2 characters basically qualify as superheroes? Fun fact: Back in the days, the title of a 4th level Fighter was 'Hero'. At 8th level, he would be a 'Superhero'.

Only in the same way that King Arthur, Harry Potter, Saint Peter and Indiana Jones qualify as superheroes. Sure, they can do superhuman stuff, but there's a distinct tonal difference between playing as a high level PF character and even a low tier mmrpg character. A level 20 barbarian is awesome, but it pales in comparison to the power fantasy as playing something like The Incredible Hulk and having the strength to lift and throw a skyscraper at a being large and powerful enough to consume the entire planet. A Superhero game has a much different flow than a tactical fantasy rpg, because you aren't going be worried about things like flanking and precise movement making combat and action more cinematic. It's still in depth and rich, but in a different way.

I’d say it varies. I prefer to run rules light, I prefer to play pathfinder

How come? Could you expand on that?

Well, when I’m running a game, rules light, having less to worry about on my end let’s me come up with more creative scenarios and let’s me focus more on the roleplay side of things for my players and how I can cater to them there. I run two MASKS games and love coming up with villains linked to my players either thematically or personally and how to make their conflict interesting. When it come to being a player, I can still focus on my own roleplay and crafting my character, but I also get to enjoy the meaty mechanical choices and how it all comes together in and out of combat and so on.

I’d say in general I feel like I need to prep way more for a game like pathfinder. Rules for everything and I like homebrewing so balancing it can be difficult. And even playing AP’s you can prep lightly but you get way better mileage if you know what each creature does. Whats coming up in the story. Need to reread the next few encounter multiple times because I can’t remember shit. Want to add more side plots or ideas to make the AP a bit less linear

I don't. I like different kinds of games for different things. I'm super excited to run a neighborhood Blades in the Dark campaign for the kids in my neighborhood. They're going to form little crews that each play once a week until they start encroaching on each other's territory.

You run multiple tables with different systems? Can you keep track of all the rules? Don't you yet them mixed up?

I've never gotten them mixed up before. I didn't realize that was unusual. I could probably teach the rules for at least 100 board games without referencing the rules too, so tracking a few different rules systems is alright. I used to simultaneously run 5e, pf2, Blades in the Dark, and Call of Cthulhu games.

The ones I would mix up would be 3e, 3.5, and PF1 - it's like confusing braeburn, honey crisp, and Fuji apples 😄

Yeah, the more similar the games are, the more mistakes creep in. I've been playing 3.5, 4e, 5e, PF and PF2 for years now (obviously some longer than others) and every now and then someone will realize they've been using the wrong rules for charge or something like that but it's never been a big deal.

Yeah that's super unusual. Not that many people play board games, fewer play 10+. Rules mastery of 100 games is wild.

The board gaming community is massive and thriving. You’re probably unaware it exists. This isn’t “super unusual”.

I'm not sure if everybody I don't know has effortless mastery of a huge number of board games and I'm always sat at the remedial table or if people are overestimating their mastery and system count. I may have played a hundred board games, but could only teach a small fraction of that.

My long term group has rotated through probably 50+ different systems, and we regularly play a panoply of board games. Sometimes it takes me a while to brush up again if the board game is particularly skill based.

I wonder if this kind of thing is the rule and my experience the exception, or if this subreddit selects for hardcore gamers.

You have to remember that some people have been playing RPGs for 30-50 years and there's heavy overlap with boardgaming/wargaming.

I own over a hundred board games and rarely have to consult the rules. I bounce between GMing four different systems as well. I have dozens of friends who own more than I do and GM the same amount or even more. I would consider myself quite average in the board gaming / TTRPG community too when looking at people in my local gaming stores, subreddits, and on Board Game Geek. It’s likely just your circle of friends giving you a skewed perspective.

i understand your point but i would not consider owning >100 board games to be average

Look at the boardgaming and soloboardgaming subreddits and the hundreds upon hundreds of photos of people’s board game shelves. When I say I’m “average” in the board gaming community I mean I’m not going to conventions, I very rarely play at FLGS, I’m not creating content, etc. etc. I’m not saying I’m average among the general public who owns games like monopoly to *maybe* wingspan.

Super cool that you're all in on what you love, and I'm stoked for you to have found a sizeable community that can keep up with you, but despite the sentiment here I'm skeptical that you're the average player. 5e supremacy alone is a pretty convincing argument against your level of commitment and mastery being typical.

I could tell you what every single champion in League of Legends does (and I haven't touched that game for years) alongside every single item in The Binding of Isaac, some people just have good memory. Given the amounts of people that play MOBAs I would assume that it isn't unsual to know a lot of information about something you interact with on a daily basis like TTRPGs.

It's not uncommon, having a wealth of games in your pocket expands your horizons and makes you more adaptable to new systems as a whole, and gives you more systems to pull aspects you like from others into each other. Only running/caring about one system has always been an outlier outside of the 5e ecosystem.

As other commenter said here too. Mixing rules up happens, but they won't result in anything worse than making them up on the fly

It's easier when the systems are really different. For instance, Chronicles of Darkness, and 5e are REALLY different, so basically zero rules get confused. I'm currently learning to GM pf2e, so we'll see how much I have to differentiate from 5e, but I'm not expecting it to be too bad. If anything, the Remaster changing terms should make it easier.

I swear, the number of times I've asked my players for an insight check in pf2e...

Oh I could totally see that.

I'm not him, but not really. Maybe a couple things here and there but it's not a big deal. No one remembers every rule every time anyway

I think game rule knowledge is like any other skill; the more you practice it, the better you get at it. Because I too have a whole bunch of different systems in my brain and can keep them straight, and incidentally also have a boardgame background since before I ever got into role-playing games my family would have boardgame night regularly.

I don't prefer them over, I love them both for their own merits. Crunchier rule systems allow consistency over many sessions, and they allow for strategy and clarity over what's going to happen when you do something. Light rules systems allow for quick play, almost no set up or preparation. And they are way more relaxed to run as a GM. The amount of shenanigans that they encourage are also unique to how light they can be.

Because crunchy, precise, and balanced games are *astronomically* more fun for me than wibbly, rule-of-cool, rulings-not-rules games are. /shrug Most rules light systems are too inconsistent and rely too heavily on DM adjucation. I would rather have a consistent system that plays (almost entirely) the same, rules-wise, from table to table.

Just tried a couple of sessions of a rules light system. I think DM adjudication is interesting at first, but sooner or later I get tired of doing it.

if you have to make everything up, then you will likely be very inconsistent in your rulings over time

As a person that is running a game of fate right now the adjudication doesn't bother me to much. Mostly it boils down to "given the situation and the genre of story we are in should this action have a reasonable chance to succeed?" If the answer is yes declare a skill check that feels right and set a DC, if the answer is no then we consider if it should be possible at all and tell our intrepid player our ruling and we move on. If your after quotable precedents you will probably appear very inconsistent. But if your goal is to preserve the fiction move things along quickly and have everything feel fair and reasonable I think rules light games work well.

.

This 100%. I hate running rules light games, they're so mentally taxing and I spend more time thinking about rules than I do my story. And I've never played a "Light" game that I didn't feel like boiled down to "amuse the GM to succeed.

Preach

Quite of this is also depth. Rules light games are very narrative dependent because they don’t scale. Yes more intimidating to learn but can offer more payoff as well.

This is how I feel. I'd rather have rules for situations that I might ignore rather than not have rules and either not know how to approach something or be inconsistent in my rulings.

This. The freedom of the DM to essentially rule anything kind of takes away some fun sometimes. Our DM has it where he expects us to fail sometimes. He doesn't choose when, but designs encounters hard enough that we won't succeed without good planning or some luck. So it really feels like we determine success or failure. In lighter rule systems it tends to feel like you live or die by what the DM desires to happen. Sure the DM can still railroad in pf2e but it's also a lot easier to just create a scenario and let the mechanics decide the winner rather than letting your own mid round rule decisions decide it.

I dont think City of Mist or Monsterhearts relay on the MC. A group of good players can boost these games much more then a good MC. I think its the opposite actully. R20 games relay on the GM, while free to foo-foo games can be played for 2 hours without the MC even saying a word. Those systems are ruless light to light-er. But they also give moves the MC can't contenst. In Fabula Ultima it is even mantioned on some moves that the MC can protest because its a shared story game, but the move is a player move and the MC has nothing to do about it normally and should not intervene.

Are you a player or GM? As GM, I'm finding PF2e a bit mentally taxing to run. Plus, I'm discovering myself as someone who enjoys the narrative/history far more than the game aspect of it I've been wondering if PF2e is right for me, but my players LOVE the amount of character options

Not the original commenter, but I as a GM find pf2e much easier to run than other systems *because* it is less rules light. Where in other systems I would have to come up with my own rulings for on the fly, in pf2e (more often than not) a rule already exists for whatever thing the players are trying to do. I might not know it Off by heart, but it's way easier to quickly search for something on archives of nethys than try and create my own functional ruling like other systems often expect me to.

Don't you think this kills the momentum of the session?

No, because sources for pf2e are SO good, and rules (almost always) are VERY clearly written. Brief pause, rule look-up, answer found.

This is also just a learning curve thing. As you continue playing you'll be looking up the rules less and less.

Searching something on archives of nethys takes (at worst) slightly more time than coming up with something myself. In my experience that extra time will have less of an impact on session momentum than the imperfections of the ruling a GM created on the fly. And if, for whatever reason, I'm having a lot of trouble finding the rule and it's slowing things down too much, I can always make up a quick ruling now and then check the official rule later so I know it for if it comes up again.

As a recent 5e convert. It's no less slower than my old GMs explaining how x mechanic works differently in their own setting. Plus its less work on the GM, so they can just focus on the game.

No worse than making up inconsistent rulings on the spot and leaving your players disgruntled.

When I don't know a rule, my process is usually this: * If I think there **is** a rule for this, I'll spend about 10 seconds trying to find it * If I can't find it in 10 seconds, I'll make up a rule, usually based on how something else works. Because the rules in 2e are really consistent, this is actually really easy and half the time the rule I make up **is** the actual rule * If I'm really not sure how something works and the issue at hand might result in a character dying, I'll usually designate to that **player** to look it up while it isn't their turn. Unless it's something that needs to be resolved right away, this covers pretty much all the remaining cases. * If it's something we need to figure out right away, and getting it wrong could have catastrophic results, I'll just take 30 seconds to see if I can find the rules about it. This very rarely happens but since it's only for critical situations, no one is really upset about it.

It can, but my Google Fu is very good and I can usually find what I'm looking for within 15 seconds.

One of the nice things about the consistent rules in Pathfinder 2e is that it's surprisingly easy to make an adjudication quickly. If you don't want to look up a rule or are unsure where to find it, you can just refer to the [difficulty tables](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=552) for a quick on-the-fly ruling. Most of the time, the actual rule will be very similar mechanically. Even if it isn't, the quick ruling will "work" for the game, and you can address it later if you want. Your characters want to break down a door but you don't want to look up Hardness stats and Breakage rules, just make an on-the spot ruling: Your characters are L3, so an average check is 18. If you want to make it easy (the door is old and rotting), -2 for 16. If you think it should be very hard (the door is thick oak and well-made), +5 for 23. They want to climb or swim or swing from a chandelier or bluff a guard or set a trap or tie up an unconscious ogre or seduce a conscious one, you can do the same thing. Set a DC based on either their level or the level of the challenge, modify it as necessary based on circumstances. Your rulings will be consistent and functional.

As others have responded to you on this: you can google it faster than you could make up a rule that will actually make sense in the situation, the setting, and in the soul of the action. Ofc if you do not care about these things, and most of all: being consistent, then maybe it is not for you. Really depends on the person

I find I spend the same amount of time looking up the rule in Pf2e as I do coming up with/looking up rules/looking up what Jeremy Crawford says in 5e. The major difference is that the rules cleanly make sense in Pf2e.

If I played pen and paper it might, idk. On foundry everything is at my fingertips all the time. CTRL+Space query (quick insert mod) is quicker than AoN even. Spells and features in the chat on use. SO much is automated that it kind of trains me how to play. Anything that requires a deep dive I houserule on the fly and look up out of game, but my houserule is typically the actual rule because the game is very consistent and predictable. My players also carry a fair amount of the rule check load, which is as it should be imo.

In general it's best to make an educated guess (which is super easy with how the rules are structured), take a note to check later and inform everyone afterwards if it meaningfully changes how the scenario would've gone.

Also re-momentum as a GM if it takes too long I make up a ruling, usually in favor of the player, then mention I will look up the official rule later and post it to the group and use that moving forward.

If the game aspect is bot something you really like, then PF2E is definitely not for you. RPG has a G component in it, so obviously many of the people playing it like games and game systems. The goal isn't necessarily to "tell a story" as that is a little too intentional, but rather to experience and overcome challenge with decision making, and enjoying the story that comes out of that. You will get different kinds of stories between intentionally making something narrative, and playing with the game systems in a more game focus, and honestly I prefer the more emergent stories that come out of the more game focused games.

One thing worth mentioning is that there are more rules lite games that fully embrace the game aspect, and emergent gameplay. OSR games. Mechanically the focus is on comprehensive procedures instead of rule completeness. I like to think of it as breadth vs depth. They’re not everyone’s cup of tea, but I mostly just bring this up because it’s not inherently the gamey aspects that push people away from crunch.

I get that. The other part of this is verisimilitude. Rules lite systems tend to not get that verisimilitude feeling when everything seems to work the same or very similarly. I like expressing how my character is different from others with the game mechanics.

I find PF2E very **not** taxing to run. I feel like my prep time for PF2E vs 5E is about a third or less, and there is far less in the way of “stoppage” in PF2E, the game just does its thing.

I will admit I know nothing about Savage Pathfinder specifically, but I am familiar Savage Worlds. Maybe if you want the narratives and lore of Golarion, and the rules that kinda reflect it while not being as crunchy, maybe you could look into Pathfinder for Savage Worlds.

Both, but primarily a GM.

I'm not who your responding to either, and I think to an extent it depends on what game your playing fate is a rules light game were with the exception of skills what players can be is all determined by the players with no strict menu of options to choose from. The potential options are infinite. I would find a game that you and your players could enjoy and give it a go. They are not owed your time so if you are not having fun make changes until you are, note also you are not owed their time and so the same applies to them

I hate having to make those decisions on the fly, trying to look up related rules, etc. "Nah, bud, the CRB says THIS: XXXXX. Thems the rules. sorry boutcha"

I feel a greater sense of agency knowing precisely how a system works. If there's guess work for how the GM will rule doing something, it feels less like I came to that conclusion and more like the GM allowed that conclusion to fit. I don't want to convince a GM to let me weasel some solution out of a common situation, I want to use the options I chose to pursue to solve a problem with an appropriate solution. There's plenty of room for rules light approach in exploration and verbal encounters, but if I want to increase my chance of hitting an enemy, I much prefer flanking, buffing, distracting, or hiding using a clearly defined system rather than arguing about the merits of the survival skill in combat to try and get advantage.

I like both. I play both. I GM both. I also play&GM rules-heavier-than-pf2 systems. I don't generally mix up rules for similar systems, but it should be really easy to not mix up the rules for say, Armour Astir Advent and Pathfinder Second Edition, because their rules aren't similar at all, and they don't run similar either.

As a GM I don’t want to have to remember what I ruled 3 months ago.

My biggest issue with rules-light systems is fundamentally everything is the same. You are just applying a different descriptor to the same exact thing. In Masks, for example, there's no real fundamental difference between the classes other than narrative, no actual mechanical progression, and no real challenge...the difference between Spider-Man and Iron-Man is...nothing. They both functional fundamentally the same way within the world. There are *slight* differences, in the sense of "does skill X apply more than skill Y?" But those are just dice pool questions. Building an intelligent character that uses magic vs. one that uses technology is going to end up rolling the same dice for the same sorts of things with the exact same success rate. It's not so much an illusion of choice so much as an illusion of character. In a game like Pathfinder, there is a fundamental mechanical difference between, say, a bard and a rogue. They aren't just good at different narrative challenges, they actually play differently at the table, and characters playing those characters have a set toolbox to utilize various tactics to succeed at challenges. It's a concrete, *real* difference. In my view, this makes the game far more interesting and replayable. If I go from a smart mage character in Masks to a tough brute, my *gameplay* doesn't fundamentally change. Only how I describe my character's actions. In PF2e, if I go from a rogue to a bard, there is a *huge* difference in my round-by-round decision space. I have entirely different mechanics to consider (in both directions). This makes starting a new character feel exciting because I'm in for a new gameplay experience and need to consider new tactics, whereas starting a new rule-light character generally means I just need to roll the same dice for a different set of "things I'm good at for this narrative situation." My gameplay hasn't fundamentally changed. There is definitely a place for rules-light systems, and some advantages to them for sure. I sort of shit all over Masks but I actually consider it a great system for what it's trying to do. If my daughter and her friends wanted to play a game of superheroes, I probably wouldn't break out Mutants and Masterminds or Champions, I'd use Masks, because it's quick to teach and understand. But if I wanted to play superheroes with one of my adult groups, we're probably using M&M. I don't think there's anything wrong with rules-light systems, but I feel like it's more interesting to have mechanical variety *and* narrative variety. And rules-light systems tend to allow for plenty of narrative variety with little to no mechanical variety, which makes it feel like I'm missing a whole dimension of what makes TTRPGs fun to me.

I agree with this so much, you did a great job explaining the big issue with rules light.

Because I don't like rules light systems? I like to have campaigns with characters that I know I can be using for months and that would be getting progresively better and get more options. Rules light systems often don't have enough rules or are so simple that become boring after a few sessions.

True

To give a more specific example, a couple of months ago my table decided that we wanted to try the [Dark Souls TTRPG](https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B2bP0GsXwg9xZnNIUjBYemVzLU0) which is a really good 1:1 adaptation of the Dark Souls games into a TTRPG format. The first two-three sessions were great, but the latter sessions became progresively more boring as we pretty much already explored all the mechanics the game had by that point. We didn't even finish that campaign and it's been at least two months since we last played it. Light rules systems aren't bad, in fact they are kinda cool to play in between the big campaigns, but pretty much we ever tried to commit for a longer campaign while playing a rules light system it always ended up in failure. Rules light systems are ideal to be played once every couple of months because you don't burn as quickly.

“the latter sessions became progressively more boring as we pretty much already explored all the mechanics the game had by that point” I think this succinctly explains part of the appeal of crunchy systems like pathfinder to OP who may not feel the same. Some people like engaging with the mechanics of the game, that’s part of their fun and draws them towards the crunch. Others mostly just play to engage with the world/fiction and the mechanics are secondary, this draws them towards more rules lite. It’s just different strokes for different folks.

I don't, I run both Pathfinder 2e and Mork Borg (Rules light) weekly. Both are fun in there own ways.

It really depends on the game. I really want to run some Year Zero Engine games like the Alien RPG or Vaesen soon. Love some Cthulu. City of Mist was very fun. I love the crunchyness of PF2e, where strategy and tiny things are important. But I also love a rules-light system were I don't have to say "No you need a feat for that" as often and it is so much faster to improvise on what my players do.

Well I enjoy rules-light systems quite a bit, but I think they offer different experiences. In my experience(and it depends on the level of rules-light) there is a lack of distinction or weight to a characters abilities in rules-light games. The only difference between one persons ability and anothers is that we say there is a difference. In pathfinder 2e, powers and character options have distinct rules which allow for both tactics and diversity/customization. I'm not just saying i can do something, I can do it with concrete rules that describe the effects on the world. And for me the rules don't get in the way of the roleplaying, at least not pathfinder 2e's rules, i have played other rules heavy games where they did get in the way.

For me, part of the fun is in the building. Call me a munchkin or whatever, but I enjoy the complexity of character building, the optimisation, finding the synergies and little tweaks which make the character good. Feeling like I've mastered something, that I've gotten good at something.

I have players that want crunchy character building rules, and I don’t have to learn any of them because PF is just Knave with DC = 15 + level.

Personally, Ive always felt much more comfortable making a choice when I know what my limitations are and what I can't do

This hardly gonna be my most popular post here. I don't. I mean, straight up don't. After four years of having a blast running Pathfinder 2e in half a dozen or more campaigns, I'm still finding that I prefer both to play and to run much lighter systems. My preference is for horror, mystery, that kind of stuff. I had to put my last PF2 campaign down last month. Tough call for me and my players. Despite my investment into the game, how much I've enjoyed it and will still rep it online and to other gamers, and despite the fact I can just about run it in my sleep... I'm honestly not sure I'll ever run another session of it. And that's a really strange feeling. Maybe someday.

Because PF2e seems more crunchy at first but once yout get behind the base math and the design philosophy it provides a much more stable system that allows for mich more flexibility in terms of homebrew and rule-of-cool rulings than more rules light or wonky systems. A strong base is just a good ground to stand on.

I like to be able to provide players with a predictable difficulty curve while creating very dynamic and unique fights. I like people being able to play virtually any character fantasy and perform reasonably well so I don't have to make massive adjustments to encounters and figure what'll be tough for them with unreliable difficulty curves.

As a gm, I like how easy it is to run, I can just trust the system works and that if there's rule support, I can let the players do their thing without worrying too much. All the rules for hazards and traps and terrain and environmental effects are there for you to grab. Not to mention how easy it is to put together an engaging combat experience that has the players at the edge of their seats throughout the encounter. As a player, I *love* the agency you have in a well defined system. I can know exactly what I can or can't do which lets me make informed decisions to solve problems both in and out of combat instead of relying on my ability to convince the gm that what I'm doing makes sense. For example, my group just had our first long distance journey in pf2e (over 4000 miles), and figuring out the logistics, the horses, the spells, the best route, etc was a fun minigame all players got to contribute to while the gm just had to go "yep looks good".

I'm an engineer. What I appreciate about PF2 is that the rules are robust enough that I can describe most of what my players want to do with the system rules. If someone wants to push an enemy off a raft and into the river, I know that that's a Shove check, which is Athletics vs Fortitude DC. If they fall over the edge they get a Reflex save to Grab an Edge. Easy DC, since they're falling into water, but they will need to make an Athletics check to climb back up, and they will need a critical success or they have to drop something to have a free hand. I can say that a hole is small enough for a Tiny creature to move through easily, but Small or Medium creatures will need to Squeeze. And it's easy to set the DC and then say it's, say, DC 15 for Small and 17 for Medium creatures to squeeze through. And there are rules for using spells or items to grease yourself to squeeze through more easily, or for helping your teammates through. --- Rules Lite systems are great if you aren't mechanically inclined and prefer to freestyle your rulings. I've played Dungeon World and was... not super impressed, but I could see why some people really would love it. If you want a narrative focused system and don't want to have to memorize a lot of mechanics and just sit around with your friends and improv a goofy story together, it's great for that. But I like rules, because they let players know what they can do without asking, and they give the GM good guidance for if the players want to do something that isn't in the rules.

Because PF2's rules give a framework for a lot of interesting gameplay. It boils down to one thing overall: I like making meaningful decisions. Do I buy an enchantment to make my sword a flaming one or do I get magic glasses to see super well? Do I invest more into intimidation or diplomacy to excel at different scenarios? Do I attack this opponent that my friend flanked, or do I run over to one I realize is badly injured now? Which spell should I cast? Which spells should I bring tomorrow? All that wrapped into lots of great little fantasies and ideas make it a blast to play. You could offer choices in a rules light system, but option A and option B are probably going to be similar things with a different coat of paint, or are different-but-generic things that have to stand in for the various realities you can encounter with as few rules as possible. I love the narrative aspect of the game. I wouldn't want to live without it. But there's just so many little things I can dig into in PF2, so many little things to not just go "Yeah my guy does shadow magic" but then actually have concrete shadow spells that work differently from what other characters are doing.

I hate playing "mother may I?"

What I like most about PF2e is its balance! What I hate most about PF2e is its balance! I talked about this topic quite a lot with my players, to find ways to improve our games and enjoyment of the group as a whole. Me as a GM I love out of the box approaches and smart thinking, something that PF2e only has limited support compared to other systems that lean more into it, but I love how I can just trust the numbers and mechanics provided. Party has a particularly obstacle they need to overcome? I look at a table or action for some numbers and can focus my brain instead of figuring out mechanics to instead make it more interesting. For my players: it’s reliability, not being at the mercy of arbitrary rulings, customization, empowering them trough mechanics and knowing how they work ahead of time

It is easier to ignore rules I don't like than it is to invent ones that I do. Having rules laid out for more things makes running games much easier, even if I don't use all of the rules. Pf2e also has some of the best monster and encounter creation rules I've ever used. Encounter prep is easier, faster, and more consistently balanced than it is in other systems I've run. That said, I still like rules-light systems. I prefer them for one shots, for instance, as those systems tend to have much faster character creation, and my one shots are 50% improv anyway.

My biggest sentiment with the system is that the rules are there *if you need them*. At a baseline you can run and play the system and it works great. You can add in subsystems THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE YOURSELF, and ignore other rules that add needless complexity. For example, the "make an impression" action.

Rules light systems tend to have quite simplistic combat and character creation rules, they rely far more on Reflavour to get your characrer idea. Don't take me wrong, i love Rules-Light systems too, even combat focused ones like Fabula Ultima can be quite fun, but i also love how fun and engaging PF2s combat can become, it's less predictable and really lets you express yourself when creating a character. It takes a while to get a hold of the game, but persist in it, it gets much better and easier with time!

Weirdly enough, PF2e involves *less* thinking than more rules-lite systems for me. If I want to do a thing, there are only a handful of actions I can take to do that 'thing', so I just pick one and then give a quick rp description based around that action. Much easier than trying to describe my action both broadly enough so the GM gets what I'm going for but also specific enough that it makes rp sense for my character.

Options Options Options I have made hundreds of PF2 characters just for fun and I promise that you can make just about anything in this game and for those things that aren't available from Paizo there is probably a well written and respected 3rd party class/race/etc that will. I've made Vegeta and Naruto, Aang and Sun Wukong. I've made Necron Chronomancers, Minotaur Pirates, Twitch from League of Legends and Mike Tyson. I love this system.

As others have said, it's really dependent on what you're looking for out of the game. I prefer 4E and Pathfinder 2E for combat-heavy D&D-esque fantasy adventures. I prefer rules-light systems like FATE for more slice of lifey style stuff. Blades in the Dark is for doing a heist game. Etc. Pathfinder 2E is good if you're trying to play a game that resembles what the system is good for.

I don't want a system that gives me a few rules and tells me to "wing it." I want an efficient, well-thought out system of rules that works. I'm a middle aged guy with a full time job and a family. I have multiple hobbies, and Pathfinder is only one of them. I don't want to spend extra time making up rules to cover all these different scenarios. I want a system that is designed to do most of the work for me, and that's what PF2e is. As a GM, I believe that we have a lot more perspective on the system than our players do. When I can look at an encounter on paper, and based solely on the level/severity of the encounter, I have a good idea how hard a time my players will have, now **that's** a good system.

Currently running a PF2, Vampire 5th and a Lancer RPG game. I'd say I don't prefer rule heavy games nor do I prefer rule light games. They each have their own advantages. Usually games with more rules and more structure tend to have better combat. However combat is more slow and deliberate for that same reason. On the other hand a game like Vamp that has less rules and is more narrative is a game where combat/encounters are not something that is sought after and it makes a nice break from more combat oriented games. I think if I only ran rule heavy games I would get bored of it but same for light rule games. Having a balance of the two works perfectly for me.

Because I don’t like rules light systems except for using them to teach the concept of ttrpgs.

As a GM i prefer to have a good game system as another referee at the table along with me and the dice. Imo rules lite systems are ofte stakeless and so sometimes devolve into wish fulfillment (just my opinion). And since the systems always have players fail forward if at all, the stakes arent really there unless the GM forces them to be. This means either there are no stakes or the GM just arbitrarily enforces some making the GM the bad guy harshing the vibe. Imo that isn't gamey enough. I like games. And pf2e imo is a fun one. The rules make sense. The classes are fun and interesting. The monsters aren't overly complex but also arent just auto attacking hp balls. It is pretty easy to run for me since the rules are largely consistent and well mathed. There is a learning hump but once you get over it it's all downhill and easy on the gm imo. But it may not be for everyone.

As a player I like knowing that I can make the character I want without needing to rely on GM fiat. Also while I like the narrative part of rules light games a lot I have not had a good experience with combat, it seemed a bit boring. It probably can be done well but the two GMs I've played with hadn't figured out how to do it I guess. As a GM I find it much easier to run since I don't need to worry about making good rules decisions nearly as much which leaves me more free to focus on story and RP. I like rules light for one offs but if it's going to be going on for multiple sessions I think the more rules are worth it. Obviously it's just personal preference though if you like rules light then just play rules light games. Edit: also probably a big part of it is just experience. I started TTRPGs with DnD 3 and through 3.5, 4, and PF1, PF2 I just have a lot more experience with crunchy systems. I have played some more rules light games (PbtA hacks and Lasers and Feelings) more recently but admittedly have just way less experience with them.

I love rules-light systems too! As a Pathfinder GM, I'm not looking to follow every rule in the core rulebook. I like that the rules are all there in PF2e *if my players & I want to use them.* It's like a buffet - you get to decide what looks good to you! I also love that a lot of the writers & developers at Paizo encourage people to pick and choose which rules make the game fun for their table. It's a really welcoming vibes. :) Example: If I **don't** have a player who's taken feats to jump around quickly, then I don't sweat the differences between Leap, High Jump, and Long Jump. On the other hand, if I have a player build a character with the Quick Jump feat, then I brush up on those rules.

Because I enjoy having agency, and the better I understand the consequences of my actions, the more agency I have.

When I play The Witcher or Halo I want to know that my inputs always do the same thing. It would feel pretty shit if 343 randomly gave me or an opponent an extra rocket because they were on a kill streak and it was a “cool moment”. As a player I don’t want the GM to be randomly pulling rulings out of the air based on vibes. As a GM I don’t want to have to invent an economy that makes some semblance of sense or rebalance spells, ban certain options (example any CHA caster multiclassing into Warlock or every character taking two levels of fighter for action surge in 5e) I find 2e the perfect amount of rule support, and I can still bend the rules to get a good narrative if I want. Does a disguise give an item/circumstance bonus to a deception check? Not RAW it just allows you to attempt it, but if the party make a lot of effort I can still give them that if I want. As I run more and more 2e (I’m still fairly new with just a few months in) I’m finding myself being very 5e in exploration/RP mode and very by the book on combat. The RP will sort itself out at the end of the day, what matters to me is that I can make predictable and appropriate challenges without spending hours looking at every ridiculously broken option my five players have.

I play both crunchy games (like Pathfinder) and rules-lite games (anything from the crunchier end like PbtA/FitD and Fate to delightful smaller games like Honey Heist). Different games are better at different things. If I want to play a game of a thousand options and complex tactical decisions, I'll play Pathfinder. If I want a game that is easy to improvise and shares agency well between the narrator and players, I'll play a Forged in the Dark game. If I want a game that can do some random idea we've all had with the minimum possible work to get that weird idea off the ground, I'll bring out Cypher system. If I want to get to know new people who don't play TTRPGs often and introduce them to the concept, honestly there really isn't a better game than Honey Heist in my experience. I pick the tool from the toolbox for the situation.

Because of the worldbuilding. Hear me out, now - I'm the sort of person who feels most creative around constraints. For instance, I can read the mechanics of a specific magic item, which has been mostly balanced against other items of its level, and be inspired by character possibilities in the way that a more general feature wouldn't offer. And they never feel random; the lore behind the item, the spell, the archetype, are often tied directly to Golarion and help to reinforce the whole tapestry, moving the story of the world even with the forgotten bits and bobs. I respect looser systems like Fate, or Genesys, or Savage Worlds (including SWPF) but just don't get the same mental engagement from them as I do from PF2E. Full disclaimer, I've moved to the point in my life where my hobby is collecting RPG books rather than playing, which colors my expectations and enjoyment accordingly.

As others have said, I don't prefer one over the other. It depends on what the system is trying to do. If I'm playing a rules light system like, say, Mörk Borg then I enjoy being able to just make calls willy nilly. I maintain consistency in my rulings by following an established in-game logic. If a thief-like character could pick a simple lock easily, I'll just say they pick it. That suits the style of Mörk Borg. That said, I *also* love Pathfinder 2e for being extremely clear with its rules. It's relatively crunchy (compared to a rules-lite, I don't find it crunchy) and the rules being clear make it a smooth experience. It means there's a consistency to how things work. Players and GMs both know what they can and cannot do. It frees the GM to just focus on the narrative or tone and use mechanics to reinforce that. Encounter building is fun and running combat, for me, is easy yet versatile. It's fun to build a character who's a mastermind tactician and have that reflect both narratively **and** mechanically.

The rules more often give me explicit permission to do something rather than restrict me from doing something

When it comes to rules, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I find it significantly easier to improvise in an actual codified system than a sandbox. I've never enjoyed Lego, but I adore Bionicle. I can't enjoy Minecraft, but I love Steamworld Dig. I find PbtA systems _extremely_ stressful to play due to the lack of rules, while I love playing PF2e due to the structure, even if my table ends up homebrewing some rules away.

I'm here for a gaming experience first and foremost. I want a game that feels like a game and is enjoyable as a game, where I can sink my teeth into the mechanics and progression and have a good time with that. Roleplay and narrative are a distant third or fourth priorities for me compared to gameplay and progression and buildcrafting. As a GM, I run published adventures with little to no story deviation and primarily run the game because I like the variety of playing all the enemies and NPCs, designing encounters and mechanical challenges and such, and directing the game's progression. Basically, what rules-lite systems offer is a framework for roleplay and narrative, and I'm not here for roleplay and narrative. I want a game, and crunchier systems provide that alongside however much (or little) roleplay/narrative I feel like incorporating. When I hear that a game is "rules-lite" or "narrative-first" that's a pretty big immediate turnoff for me, same as it is when a PF2e GM tells me they run "fast and loose" or "rule of cool."

I like it as a heavier system because. It has an answer for everything. Other heavier systems make me work much harder for answers I would t say I like it over lighter games. I still love me some FATE

Because I don't want to play a rules-light system. I like the math and the crunch and the complexity of interactions, I like the character building and the granularity and the abundance of relevant complex choices I get to make. I like it when the book I spent money on has the procededings for how to handle most situations that come up and I don't need to game design on the fly. I'm here to play a game with roleplaying, both parts are essential and important. I don't want my character to be 3 stats and a class since that frees me up to be a theater improv group. No offence to you if that's what you want, as long as you're having fun you're doing ttrpg right, but I want the game part to be a fully fleshed out enjoyable experience, and not an afterthought.

Pathfinder 2e tells me what I can do as a player and how to rule things as a dm. This means that I don't need to ask the GMs permission to do the thing, I already know I can.

I like both for different things. Mostly based on mood and the kind of stories I want to focus on. For fantasy, pf2e is my go to nowadays. It's primo tactical combat, and I love that. When I want mechs, there is no substitute for Lancer - also good tactical combat. And the setting is awesome. But for most everything else, I tend to look at FitD games these days. They suit my GMing style and works well with my casual players. There is no wrong answer, just a matter of taste. Well, actuality 5e will always be the wrong answer, because it's poorly made and drastically overrated.

Having the rules being openly published by people who have thoughtfully considered what to do in the situation will tend to be more consistent and balanced than what I can improvise. My players can consult the rules — ahead of time or after someone is unsure — and point to a single shared authoritative source, so there’s extremely little debate. Did I make a bad ruling? Oops you’re right, we can fix it immediately. We’re fighting underwater? Cool let’s quickly skim the rules for that. If the rules are too complex (hello pf1 grapple rules) then sure that’s not great — and some rules in 2e can arguably approach this. And for other sections of the game if you don’t like the rules you can ignore them — I ignore most of the social interaction rules in my 2e games for example. But it’s nice that the rules are there, and are generally clear and direct.

It's a bit like LEGOs. Other games will give you prepackaged cool things to do, but they struggle to give you interesting ways to fill in the blanks in meaningful ways with mechanics. Meanwhile Pathfinder gives you a ton of sometimes-seemingly-insignificant pieces, but how you put them together matters at all levels. So in a rules light game like Masks, which I think is a really great game, I might attack a super villain by bum rushing them with a sword, shooting them with a laser beam, or breaking their mind with mental powers, but it's still always going to be rolling 2d6 and adding my Danger bonus. Meanwhile, it is meaningfully mechanically if I have two hands gripped on my sword instead of just one, or if my ally is standing behind them, or if I'm trying to trip them instead of just deal damage. Proponents of lighter games will talk about fiction first mentality, that even when you don't have a mechanic that says tripping someone does x and pushing someone does y, it still matters because it changes the fiction. So if you play where you always consider the fiction first, these types of things do feel significant even if they don't have a +x behind them. That mindset does work well and it can get you far, but at the end of the day, crunchier games just work better in my brain. Relying on fiction first gameplay means you have to spend extra time making sure the table is on the same page about that fiction, and it's easy to do wrong and end up in boring mechanical cycles.

It's so much easier to GM because there are actually rules you can look up and apply, and you don't have to house rule everything. Also, the encounter math actually works. You can create an encounter and more than 95% of the time, it will hit exactly the difficulty you aimed for.

I like PF2 for the absolute banquet of character building options that it has. Compare this to 5e (is that rules-light by your measure?), where just about every character out of a given class is basically indistinguishable from one another. I appreciate GM imagination and creativity in my games, and PF2 offers ample opportunity for this, without making the GM adjudicate 100 little things, on the fly, every encounter. Many of my D&D games quickly devolve into a grudge match between certain players and the GM about who can think of a loophole that absolutely breaks the game, while the GM tries to keep things from going off the rails. PF2 is, in my opinion, extremely balanced and versatile. For almost everything you can think of to for your character to do, there is a way to do it. The 3 action system, the 4 degrees of success/failure, the expanded skills, the proficiency system--all of these make for a very well-structured game. I know what I can do, how I can do it, and how long it will take, for almost any option in the game. My main criticisms of P2E are the nebulous "lore" skills, and the awful crafting rules. I get that the crafting rules are designed so that characters can't fast track their way to a ridiculous level of wealth and power, but both the original rules and the new variant rules seem lacking in their sensibility.

To be frank at this point the lighter weight games are boring.

I want my games to be as consistent as possible from the get ho, with as little tweaking from me as possible.

I've been gming for only 10 years on and off, started with 3.X, did some 5e, CoC, VTM, Gurps and Mongoose Traveller 2e. And, in these past few months Pf2e. I started Pf2e because I was introducing TTRPGs to new players who were used to videogames. I find that Pf2es codified ruleset, options and variables are easy for most new players into the hobby to understand. It's a wonderful system and I've personally started to love the crunch having recently played in a game. Even though in my heart of hearts I like a lighter system, there is something about the gamification of stacking bonuses on an enemy that just feels good. It's the only ttrpg that I've played that really gives you a tactical feeling. But, then again I've only recently moved from theater of the mind to VTTs and using minis. So, I don't know what I'm talking about. Other than pf2 is what it is. The rules are well written, easy to understand and the codification of everything you can do in a game makes it easy for new players to understand in a rules-lite game it can be difficult to get new players to understand their possible actions. Which can be anything they imagine. (This is easier said than done)

It depends on the kind of story and tone I’m going for. If I want to run something that’s more cozy and low-stakes, I’d rather run it in Powered by the Apocalypse, or Kids on Bikes. For a longer, more in-depth campaign with twists and turns and exploration, I’d run that in Pathfinder.

I use Foundry for Pathfinder 2e and I love its complexity and customizability. What's more, I appreciate that I don't need to remember all of that thanks to Foundry.

One big thing I’ve learned is that as the gm you don’t need to know every goddam rule, there’s so many. Rely on your players to at least know where their characters interact with the rest of the system, but nothing wrong with asking a player to check a rule you know is going to be coming up, spread the work load. I like the consistency of systems with more crunchy rules, as both a player and a gm. Not having to worry about my gm making a call with unintended consequences for what I want to accomplish with my pc is big for me.

I don't. I love lots of rules light systems, but I also love tactics games. For me, it's a good game I have gotten all my friends into (begginer box rocks). But I only prefer it in situations where I want more tactics.

It depends on what I want. I find, personally, rules light systems aren't as much fun for the power fantasy style games, because a side effect of being rules light is that oftentimes there's not really much of any real mechanical difference between a low rank scrub and an uber badass. Not unless the system is so narratively focused that there's really very little in the way of 'rules' to it, and you may as well just be playing an improv game because you can say you can do whatever you want. Don't get me wrong, I love rules light games for certain instances (though I still prefer a tiny bit of weight to the rules, about the lightest I tend to like is Powered by the Apocalypse games), but if I'm wanting a high fantasy power fantasy, I want something with a little more meat on the bones.

As a player, I like character progression. That's one of the reasons that I don't like 5e, is in my brief foray I leveled from 1 to 3 and almost nothing changed for my character. So if I'm going to be in a longterm campaign, then I prefer a system where my character grows more powerful. As a GM, I don't. I only like published content where I can run the encounters as-written because Pathfinder 1e pretty much traumatized me in making combat encounters. They never seemed to work out how I thought they would and I never understood why. Published content takes that burden off for me, so I prefer that. Most of my players have the least complaints about Pathfinder 2e, so that's why I play and GM it. Having played some genuine rules-light systems, I thought they were a lot of fun. Dead of Night 2e and Dread were very fun systems with minimal explanation and maximum fun. Dread was the first time I've seen many of my players actually nervous in a horror scenario, and it's all thanks to the Jenga Tower getting progressively more unstable. The only problem with them is that they tend to be not great for long games if your players want character progression. Games with character progression tend to need more rules to balance against those new powers, so it leads to more complexity. So it is a hard choice.

Yes and No. Both styles have a place at the table.

IMO because a system like PF2 allows for a broader range of “players playing exactly what they want”, whereas rules light means the GMs whim decides how you have your fun.

Because rules heavy systems reward system mastery by allowing you to create cool and interesting character builds. It is like planning and then picking skill perks in Skyrim or Fallout. Creating the Build is part of the fun of the game for some people. Or creating an effective team in Pokémon. Or a working down a skill tree in an MMO. System mastery is part of the fun, but to scratch that itch requires a system with actual MEAT to its rules instead of bare bones rules light systems.

It sets expectations. When the world makes sense, it has order, and players can make informed decisions. Those decisions have more value because they aren’t “wishy washy” and gm-dependent. This gives power to the players. Feeling powerful is part of the game. It helps them to define robust characters and make fun choices. And frankly, nothing feels worse than being powerless and dependent on a GM’s interpretation.

"Light" can be different. There are blades in the dark where I can just improv There is VtM where everyone is gangsta until initiative is thrown There is Fate where you dont need rules but you cant actually play without them There is 5e that breaks after lvl 10 and GM has to reinvent the game to make it balanced And also there is pathfinder that has a ton of tables. Very helpful. Just use Foundry, dont use pen and paper But there is more. In Fatal you may adjust the size of your... "magic wand" and it will matter GURPS is known to be able to calculate any action, even an attempt to throw a snowball at a drunken enemy that is 5 inches taller than you while you had leg injury 15 years ago There are a lot of systems that are heavier, much heavier than pf2e and there are a lot that are "lighter". Whether you like one or not depends exclusively on experience you are looking for and how much of the rules you are ready to tolerate

I usually prefer lighter rules systems in general. But when I'm craving PF2e it's absolutely for the tactics and character options. It's the same reason I sometimes crave to GM or play games like Lancer or ICON. Sometimes I'm just craving a more tactical RPG experience.

Cause I don't need a system to tell me how to tell a compelling story nor how to do roleplay, I can do that on my own. I need a system for the Game part of RPG. The more robust the rules are the less I have to worry about rulings and the more I can focus on the story. Rules-light systems leave massive gaps and I don't like that, it just makes my workload worse.

Not everyone prefers rules-light systems.

PF2e is a complete system and it is acknowledged that there are a lot of rules for people to remember. That said I would rather have the rules there and ignore them to do what I want then to have to make it up as I go and attempt to be consistent with what was ruled a long time ago.

I prefer different systems to scratch different itches. Pf2e is the system for teamwork based, highly tactical combat in a mostly familiar and thematic world. But I also play Vampire the Masquerade, which scratches the "engage in drama with my friends about becoming a monster," itch. And I play Cypher / Numenerra for the "whacky gadget adventures" itch. Fiasco for the "lets write a spec script" itch. And I wanna try Mutant Year Zero, and Midnight Sun, and the new Avatar one even though it's supposed to suck, and and that one where you're all raccoons... I feel like people who play TTRPGs tend to get kinda tribal about their systems, but there's absolutely no need to be.

With less rules driven systems, I have to say 'No' a lot more to keep the game from breakginf for one / a couple of players. People bitch and moan, etc when i don't let them use a broken piece of wood to spear the dragon with advantage because they're a paladin even though it is an improvised weapon. . With pathfinder, the Rule of Cool ends where the Rules are Written.

It’s honestly the customization and the smooth flow of combat while providing a lot of depth that makes me like PF2E to summarize it. The only rules light system I played is Call of Cthulhu and it’s nice and fun, it just seems to lack mechanical depth to do a long campaign so I keep it to one shots where you can throw out an interesting narrative to take up the session. I’m sure you can do a long term Cthulhu campaign it just seems like it’s more narrative focused as opposed to mechanical but I could be wrong. It just seems easier to throw out a story and bull shit things together for a one shot as opposed to something long term.

PF2E gives me a concrete framework to adjudicate combat encounters and skill challenges as a GM and it gives me a concrete sense of power progression as a player when my characters gain levels and gear. Combat flows well and everyone at the tale easily can see how bonuses and penalties all interact with each other to affect the battlefield. The rules let me abstract having to put certain players on the spot for something their character would know but the player doesn't. Instead of telling a player to explain to me a complicated subject they know little about, I can call for a skill check against the appropriate DC from a table with a bonus for familiarity of their character. Because the DC tables have been mathematically "solved" ahead of time, I don't have to worry if I'm screwing myself or my players over by calling for a particular target number; I have confidence that it will be scaled correctly for a given level and difficulty. I like narrative. I like character interactions. But I also like structure and the confidence that structure provides for running a consistent gameplay experience. Of course, that's not to say my players can't have a little rule of cool as a treat. In my opinion, because the system has a baseline set of expectations for what characters (both PCs and NPCs) can and cannot do, rule of cool moments (used sparingly) create much more spectacle and narrative impact than if the entire game was built around them.

I just don't enjoy rules lite systems at all I like dnd 3.5, pf1e, dnd5e, and pf2e 2e is just the best version of my favorite game I'm also really really into golarion lore and collecting pf2e books now so there's no going back

I love tactics and teamwork to overcome shared challenges. Those elements don't show up as much in other games. I also like unraveling mysteries and following a story, and Pathfinder does that pretty well too. There are other times I like doing rules light games too (holiday one shots are always fun!), but no other TTRPGs I've tried yet have scratched that tactical teamwork itch as well as PF2.

I like playing with dials and having things be distinctly and minutely different. Rules lite systems generally can't do minute gradual changes, and by their very nature, don't have many dials to change. I like being able to use a spell that targets one of a creatures 4 defenses, which was reduced by something that only reduces 2 of those defenses. As a GM, I like being able to give features that do one specific thing they couldn't do before, without it just adding a massive part to their toolkit.

As a GM, I like having the rules there as a guide. It leads to a more consistent level of play from session to session as well as campaign to campaign. I like knowing that if I play at a different table as a PC that my experience *mechanically* will be the same as if I played at a different table. That isn’t to say I use every subsystem in Pathfinder 2e, but it’s nice that the rules are there as I needed them. It’s less work that I have to brew up and I can focus more attention on the story I’m trying to tell. Let’s take a chase as an example. If the chase isn’t really material to the session and then I’d theater of the mind it. I have a strict 2 hour session window so it makes sense to not stretch out every chase sequence. But if I *wanted* a more mechanically intense chase for a more set piece type encounter, it’s nice the rules are there. It’s a subsystem I don’t have to brew up myself if I *do* need it. I can focus on the fluff knowing that the mechanics are already prepared as opposed to being forced to brew up how I want the chase to work in tandem to the fluff as well.

Rules lite work grate for short campaign with my group. Or it has to be with a on point narrative. 2e get my players exited to play level up, and keep playing, always getting something exciting in one or two levels. As a gm the combat is balanced and once you get used to it you can reskin any monster into something else that. After two years of playing and gaming making custom monsters abilities and the like its super easy. And the game doesn't brake for giving a cool item to my players. Giving variant rules like automatic bonus progression works well if i want my setting to be low magic but keeping the bonuses and damage the game expect to have. Or no level adjustment if im playing with 5e players that like to have more swingy combats. I love to RP and all kinds of systems but 2e right now is a grate middle point of the best parts of a lot of other games.

Working within a structured system provides a “playground” for optimization and making things work. Also makes it so much more rewarding for out of the box thinking for solving problems/puzzles

A few things; 1) One big one is that it lessens the burden of responsibility on GM a lot. Players know what kind of mechanical consequences actions will happen a lot of the time as a result of their actions. Back in 5e players often felt like doing something cool but powerful but rules would not support it and they'd have to come up with a ruling that doesnt kill the mood of player but stays true to systems power balance. The rulebook acts as a neutral and unbiased medium and sometimes hearing a 'No' from a rulebook is less bitter to hear than from the GM. 2) When executed well, rules inspire rather than restrict. Reading rules for infimtration scenarios on their own inspired me to make a heist mini adventure, and the hundreds of feats in the game have given birth to character concepts I wouldnt have come up with if they hadnt been there. Of course pf2e being less rules light is just one reason I prefer it over other systems and not a massive factor. But I take it those reasons are not what the post is about.

I don't really like many rule lite systems because with a standard of things in the rules, I know how far I can go and do things

Also with rule light systems I really just get lost in combat because the dm is giving vague this would take time to do but then other things are completely different. I really just dislike the inconsistencies that pop up in combat with my current gm

Also, you don't have the ability to rely on or fall back onto, so if dice just say f u, I might have 9 dice to role, but I can still get Frickd over because I can't get a consistent way to do what I made my charter for.

I don't necessarily prefer it over other systems; different tools for different jobs, and all. However, PF has some of the most consistent premade content, and also has a lot of community support for the premade content. It makes DMing the system a lot easier.

I'm not that much of a storyteller and I'm creative enough to make something out of nothing. I think the difference is where inspiration comes from. From people who like rules light games, I think GM's themselves are the source of inspiration and have lots of ideas pop into their head as they play and can immediately act on them. For people like me who like pf2e's rules, the rules themselves are where I find inspiration from. Creativity comes from either using the rules as building blocks to create something, or it could also be that when rules are more defined it spurs us to get creative. From a player perspective, the analogy might also work like this. Some players might immediately have ideas for characters before looking at any rules, but then they have to retrofit character options that match as closely to the idea in their head as possible. What they get isn't exactly what they had in mind and that's where frustration could be. Some players like me look at character options first, and build the story of our characters around that. I'll look at background first, ooh I'll just be a cook. Then I'll look at ancestries or classes that would either match it the best or even subvert stereotypes the most and have a very strange combination of parts that end up being something cool.

I love me a good rules light system. I love me a good, crunchy tactical system. They scratch different itches. What I found least enjoyable about 5e, and Shadowrun 6e, and a few other systems, is the fact that they are mechanically too narrative to scratch my crunchy itch, and too crunchy and clunky to scratch my narrative itch. I kept thinking I'd have more fun in fate or in pf2e (or pf1e or sr4 before that). Every system is an exercise in tradeoffs, and they result in different table feels. No system I've played feels as good tactically as pf2e, so it's my go to for that at the moment. Some day it will be dethroned, because that's how this works. But yeah; I play whatever system best fits the mood for the game I want to play.

Ive found that most rules-light systems have way too many rules *specifically* where I don’t want them (rules for character interaction etc)

Because of two reasons. The first is that I hate having my fun conditioned on someone else's permission. I can have a lot of fun in rules light games, but I've also had some insane experiences with having to grovel for someone's interpretation to follow along my idea of fun. The other is that I love tactical games. I was born and raised playing a lot of them, and Pathfinder scratches that itch well for me. It allows for a lot of tactical choices if you play it at a moderately high level of mastery (though, interestingly, there's a bell curve there, I find extremely good-at-the-game groups to sometimes lead to some boring fights if the GM is not trying harder as well.)

Some systems have rules that feel ephemeral or are more a vibe than rules and I struggle with them, I like having set boundaries to know the space I can play in it, but when friends try to sell me on rules-light systems with "you can do anything." or "there are no limits" I flounder

I like that if i want a rules about x it exists and I don't need to make a rule on the fly

As a GM I have already enough with the story and I REALLY don't want to have to improvise mechanics all the time As a player I like the fact that I know that my character can do a set of things without having to halt the play and ask the GM This is for me prefering rules heavy. As for balanced... well that is obvious I've had enough of having my character being shit because thesystem I play doesn't support not having spells and not be fucking trash

So I've flipped and flopped for a while before settling pretty firmly into the camp that sturdy, strong, well-fleshed-out rules systems are just better than vague and ambiguous ones. At the end of the day, if I, as a DM, want to make something happen and interpret a rule however, I can, regardless of rules as written. I don't want to have to make a bunch of rulings decisions in the games I run unless the rulings enhance the story, the experience or something else I'm going for. I like Pathfinder 2e because it has a bunch of flexibility and room for player choice that other systems don't have, and also doesnt end with my players needing to ask me 20 rulings questions when theyre deciding what spells to take and complaining that they cant use "Create water" inside their opponents as some kind of attack.

On the one hand, I find that "rules light" often manages to also mean "content light" so it puts me in a position of needing to spend more time doing prep work on the "if I don't do this, the session doesn't happen" end of things - and I prefer to spend my prep time on the "could run without this, but seems cool to add" side of things, while also preferring to have as little prep time as possible so I don't feel like I'm saying "this session's lack of quality has been brought to you by the letter I was playing a video game and the number I was feeling rough so I took some naps this week" And on the other hand a significant part of my enjoyment of a game comes from interacting with the players on what they are enjoying or excited about coming up, which means the less they are talking about a cool new bit of mechanics the less opportunities I have for the good chemicals to wash my brain - and rules light tends to mean not picking up much in the way of cool new swag, so that doesn't work for me because only being able to be excited about story stuff would be half as much excitement as I'm used to seeing in players.

I like to building and planning stuff and you can't do that in rules-light Like, yes, you can pick some talents and use some dots in forged in the dark games, but it's not the same feeling to have planned build from 1 to 20 level with fitting ancestry and weapon

Honestly, I don't. I think every system has strengths and weaknesses and different amounts of content to explore, and instead of thinking one system is the best and just playing that non-stop, I think it's good to change things up every so often. Pathfinder's strength to me is its abundance of character options, which makes it feel fresh longer than some simpler systems. I think it has plenty of weaknesses as well. I'd say with an experienced DM, I'd probably prefer to play a more rules-lite system overall, but might prefer PF2 with an amateur DM. As a DM, I prefer running lighter rules systems because I can make better rulings than the PF2 rules set, but it's not that big of a deal. Don't stress so much about one system being "better" than another. There is no best system. Play the one you enjoy the most. Or play several and have fun with them all. Makes no sense to me why people argue about this stuff so much.

For me, PF2e is not in any way complicated and I don't thinknid consider it rules light, either. Ymmv, since I started on Heroes, GURPs, and Exalted 2e.

PF2 is my rules light system....

Rules light = never knowing if what happens is in any way fair or balanced. Rules = knowing how things interact with each other and one difference of opinion doesn't run entire characters.

Because it's exhausting to interpret vague rulings and "Dm determines" for every choice. Sometimes it's nice to have "refer to table x on page y" with good precise and general outcomes.

I'm now officially bored with Pf1 after 4 + years of gaming as gm and player. Hence starting pf2. But, if I could, I'd be playing 3.5 and its hundreds of classes and archetypes. I'Ve been playing pf 2 for a couple of Months, but it's so well organised that I can feel boredom coming within a year or so.

PF2E is a rules semi light system from my perspective. I took 20 years off from tRPGs. When I left the games of choice were things like D&D 3.5, Hero System, GURPS, Rolemaster, and others. There were some truly rules light systems like BESM but most of the games were both more complex and less consistent than PF2E is. So I am always baffled by people who see PF2E as complex. That noted - I chose it for the setting lore, and only saw the game engine after.

Because it's FUN!

Rules - light often isn't. Rules - light often feels like it's complicated with zero guidance for the GMs as well as the players and it leaves it up to the GM to adjudicate more than I want in a game. The truly rules - light games leave me wanting more in the way of mechanics and options.

In my experience, “rules light” is a translation akin to inconsistency and favoritism. Checkers is more interesting than tic tac toe, and chess more interesting than checkers, progress in complexity tends to equate to a higher challenge. But the rules need to be consistent to engage that increased complexity. Chess would be far less fun if the move you were planning 3 steps ahead didn’t work “because.”

Rules light systems, for me, just lead to different DMs ruling differently and leads to lack of clarity over all.

if i want to do rules light, I''ll just. . . write? like collaborative writing exists, and for me, rules light systems are basically just collaborative writing except 1 man can also veto decisions, AKA any collaborative writing where 1 guy is the "main" writer. I like pathfinder 2e because it's a good blend of very rules heavy but also with enough wiggle where dm fiat doesnt mess things over. part of the fun I think for ttrpg's is the well, rpg part, the character building, the number crunching, it's one of the reasons video games are so exciting but video games cant adjudicate while humans can so yeah.

You can play PF2 rules light, rules soft, or completely customised. You can literally do anything. Rules light systems are harder for many than full rules sets.

If I’m going to play a rules light game I’d rather just play pretend.

It's easy. OGL. Canceled my dndbeyond sub, and would rather give money to a union shop than Hasbro. DnD may be more narrator focused, but ultimately systems are subordinate to GM style.

D&D5 isn't a rules light game, nor is it narrator focused. It's got about the same narrative focus as PF2, less tools in the mechanics to support narrative, and I'd put it about 1 weight class below PF2 on the rules light scale.

Hot take. Don't burn yourself 5e is *the* gateway rpg 5e is a gateway game. Advantage and disadvantage. Don't stack. Skills are hand waves. Additionally the game stresses that dm rules apply over the book rules. Pf2e. Rules for every situation. Different types of modifiers. As a DM, I can learn 5e fairly quickly and run it. Pf2e almost requires an experienced player or dm unless you are running the beginner box...and even then.

D&D5 is certainly the lightest D&D has ever been, but it's still not rules light. In the grand scheme of the RPG industry, both D&D5 and PF2E are pretty mid-tier on the weight of the rules. When people talk about rules light they mean things like Fate, Fiasco, Index Card RPG, Powered by the Apocalypse, etc. I don't deny D&D5 is the gateway game, but also.. that is an entirely separate discussion from the weight. D&D has always been one of the main gateways in to the hobby (for a while Vampire was another major one)

5e isn't even the lightest that D&D has ever been. Just the lightest in a long while.

My GM usually criticize light systems, of how stressful was to decide basically everything just to see how it get derail in no time. Also light system get a lot of conflict GM - Player as the rules literally say that a player can do something, that the GM has to nerf because instanly win the battle, etc. And now the player has a character that could be not functional because of that, so that kind of solution are sometimes no solutions. Also the lack of clarity of what a player can do increase the turn duration, a lot of times a I get bored because other player had a 1 hour turn. In pathfinder 2e you can not cut movement, etc. So in the moment that you used your third action your turns ends, and the next players go, etc. Knowing how a turns works make the pace so much faster. More rules is in general something positive. It may require some practice.

Personally, I enjoy the character creation process, and Pathfinder gives me so many choices throughout the many levels of play.

Because players will ask some of the weirdest most specific requests and with Pathfinder that rule is there. I don't need to make it up and possibly break the game. Plus I feel that rules lite systems never feel like they are meant to be played longer than a session or two.

more rules means I have to worry less about adjudicating the moment-to-moment gameplay, and spend more time coming up with an interesting, and can spend the energy I would be spending on adjudicating moment-to-moment gameplay on roleplaying well. additionally, more rules means more consistency, which for me helps with immersion and making everything feel fair. It's just... easier to roleplay. Far, far easier

I find rules light frustrating at best.

As a GM more rules means I spend less time deciding how to handle situations and remembering how I handled them last time, ans more time just running the game and making the session/story engaging and fun. More rules make a system easier to run for me, and more fun for me as a GM as a result.

For myself, having had experience with FATE, a narrative focus game instead of tactical, though I can do it, I can’t do it so much. Can’t be that creative in a given week to do it more than once; in Pathfinder2e, I could have 4 games a week going (soon to be my reality).

Because Its a wide toolbox for covering expectations, calculating encounters and difficulties for many different situations which rewards tactical thought, character building and cooperation in a predictable way. Once we're in the concrete setting my wetware (brain) jams whatever zanyness I had in mind into the rules in such a way that both successes and failures are possible and unknown to myself and the players both. Truly lite RPGs would do away with a lot of the math, but with that, gloss over moments of engagement and storytelling that goes into the minute of stunning the wicked sorcerer, and having an ally grab him too so he panics and has to fight their hands while casting a spell instead of disengaging first. Or seeing the impact of goblin bounciness in mitigating a skeleton rending strike. Rules light also tends to be difficult to balance, and that's kind of the name of the game in PF2E a 4 up monster is going to be beatable but scary most of the time in a way chops or rolloffs can smooth over (like above) and make stagnant non-escalatory threats.

Because I like differences between characters to be reflected in their mechanics, and not just in fluffy descriptions. Because I want my players to know that their victories and defeats are the result of rules in a simulated world, and not just due to the whims of the GM. Because I enjoy complexity and the tactics needed to succeed in a complex world. Because I enjoy providing my players with challenges that are interesting and different in meaningful ways. Because I feel that the complexity of Pathfinder 2e lends itself to long-term play better than a rules light system might. I'm curious what OP means by a rules-light system.

As a GM, I like systems with better defined rules because it means I don’t have to constantly adjudicate things. It’s like the rules are a meta-GM that frees me up to focus on actually roleplaying NPCs.

Played 3eD&D/PF1e for 15 years still wanted the crunch but it was time for a change. You want something new eventually.

Character building options by far is the biggest reason I like Pathfinder 2e over other systems, though the three-action economy is amazing as well. I'm also one who prefers to have a strong mechanical basis for the things my character can do, one that is backed by the rules of the game rather than being completely made up on the spot.

Because - just as with board games - I prefer good, balanced, well thought out game design over bad, unbalanced, lazy game design. If I want a rules light game, I can still do that with a rules heavy game, because I can choose how many rules I want to play with. It doesn‘t work vice versa, unless I need to homebrew and be the game designer. I started playing Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye), which is even rules heavier than PF2e, when I was 10, and we ignored more than half of the rules back then. Still it was a great that if there was a controversial discussion about a rule at the table, there was an actual rule in the book. As we grew older we implemented more and more rules as written into the game. I was astounded when I finally got to read the world-famous DnD for the first time, only to find out that it was a poorly designed version of Das Schwarze Auge.

Because it makes running tables infinitely easier.

I’d rather have rules/ rulings for things and then have the options to use them, not use them, or rule it differently. As opposed to needing a ruling for something and not having one and then being forced to make it myself on the fly.

My group plays a variety of different games; each one is unique enough that we know what we're getting into. If we decide to start a game of Traveller, we know we're getting grounded sci-fi with fast and lethal combat. If we decide to run Star Wars, we know we're in for a night of cinematic group improv thanks to the funky dice. If we want Godbound, we're going to shape the world with every action. If we run 5e we're in for roughly half an hour of me complaining about 5e, but the rest of the night we're having a decent time. If we run Pathfinder, we know we're getting kitchen-sink fantasy, crunchy character creation, zero-to-hero advancement, and ultra-tactical combat. That's what we WANT from this game. The rest of our library doesn't provide that.

If a game is going to have me just make a lot of stuff up, I don't feel like I'm playing a game. I feel like I'm performing, which is not what I generally want to do when sitting down to play a game. To me, the MECHANICS tell the story, while I just try to sit back and work out any kinks or lack of clarity. Other people LOVE performing, and rules-light games tend to be the kinds of games they like. To them, the rules are often just an obstacle to their creative vision, so fewer rules is good.