Prime Requisites, or Ability Scores are not important

"In the OSR, ability scores are not important. They are deliberately so because it would be bad design to put too much weight on attributes you roll randomly"

This is something I read a lot on the internet, when skimming blogs and forums up and down, reading things about my favorite games. And I want to make an argument against it, because it's not really true.

They are not big in protagonismt on OD&D's "mechanical" side. Their uses on proper gameplay are but hinted; a numerical descriptor of the character so you can imagine it better, and for the GM to be used as he sees fit. But they are decisive on a crucial part: the prime requirements. 

A correct ability score can allow or veto a class. Not only that, it can put two characters of the same class at disadvantage, by allowing one to advance faster than the other: having the correct score on the correct ability allows you to progress a % faster . It's not like its a dealbreaker, but if you think about it, what's the point on it?

I guess its because it felt genre appropiate: You want to incentivize strong fighters in your game. You want to incentivize intelligent wizards. But if that is the reason, it feels like the lamest way to push that. If your low STR fighter cannot hit hard in melee and relies more on the bow, it's not too bad. But that the same low STR fighter receives less XP its a dissociated mechanic. It doesn't exist to reinforce the world or a reality, it is just an empty punishment. 

It's not really 3d6 in order if you must reduce attributes with that point buy, and get the appropiate one (providing that you can pay the amount of attributes in a 2:1 proportion) just to not play a gimped character. 

If its for being genre appropiate, I can think on much better ways. For example, allowing one re-roll, and just telling fighters that strength will help them performing their class role (even if its by a small +1 to hit). 

The ability score could also be dismissed, and, if its something needed by the class, just implement it in the class. For example, in the case of strength again, just get rid of it. Then declare "being strong" as a fighter base ability. Yes, I know its sounds so bad, but I am assuming you need strong fighters because genre fidelity.

Another method is what I am doing at the moment: I don't do XP increases for anyone: the prime attribute must be useful by itself, or not exist. Strength already powers up your attacks, so it is a good thing to have by itself. So, I allow characters to increase their prime requisites during the game: every level up, roll 1d20: if you roll equal or over your desired prime requisite, you can raise it by +1. 

This makes fighters a little more strong, mages a little more intelligent, hobbits a little more dexterous. I could probably extend this to any chosen ability instead of choosing the prime requisite, but as the specific abilities are what help the characters to fill their class roles, they would naturally gravitate towards STR, INT and DEX, probably.

Instead of using requisites as a dissociated punishment, I use them as an associated reward (that still creates the genre appropiate tropes). I feel that its also nicer for a fighter to feel he might get that precious +1 someday than to accept that it is gone from his hands in the very moment the character is created.

But enough with prime requisites, I want to go further. In OD&D at least the scores were not so important beyond that. I cannot talk about AD&D because I am not familiar with it. But B/X's strength modifiers are TERRIFYING

When talking about damage output in D&D, a +1 to damage is roughly equal in power to a +2 to hit. This means that every strength modifier you get, your fighter is getting a +3 to hit. 
And this means that a level 1 fighter with +1 strenght is attacking as a fighter as high as 8 levels higher than him.

It's not that its bad, but it is certainly a lot for a game in which ability scores do not really matter.

Imagine being that special guy who rolls a +2 or a +3. 

Constitution can also be a very desequilibrating attribute, but also Dexterity with the AC and Missile fire adjustments. Both are great examples on how a great roll or a couple of them can put your character several levels above their capabilities. 

Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma are not as decisive, I guess, though it can be because I dont usually feature much hirelings in my games and players do not seem to care about getting more than one or two, though I can see how a maxed out charisma can be exploited through encounter checks. There is not much more to add but for encouraging you, dear reader: should you be thinking on implementing a houserule (such as relying on "roll under" ability checks for something) and the idea of putting too much weight on the scores is holding you back, don't hold. They are already heavier than they look. 

 

Dungeon Floor Level 1: The nameless city

Pitch: There is this ruined city up a forgotten road, where the rumors say there is a tower that is only visible at night, but vanishes during the day. They say it was the work of a famous magician that lived there when the settlement was alive. It will surely be ripe of magical trinkets, wonders, treasure and dangers.

The PCs won't find the tower unless they delve during the night, and their vision will be greatly improved if they choose a moonlit one. This might increase the paranoia of lycanthropes or vampires amongst the players, but there is not a single one of such. YET. Still working on the tower levels.

KEY: 

1. This house has no roof and it's full of reeds. They hide a small pool with magical propierties: Whenever the moon shines on it, the water glows with moonlike light, until the next day. Anything soaked on that water will glow as a torch as long as its wet. 1 in 6 chance there is a treant bathing in the water.

2. Five hobbits are housed here. They are adventurers who come for loot just like you did. Three have bows, two have daggers. They will give information about a random room (d20 + d6) for free. They will expect something in return for any other help. 120 sp are hidden under a pile of rags. The door is totally blocked and they get in through the window.

3. Door to the city. The trees right in front of you can be crossed, but it takes a full turn to get through the naked, twisted branches. This works the same on any other tree concentrations. If you spend a turn trying to burn it with a torch, it catches fire on a roll of 2 in 6. The whole tree will be on fire on 1d6 turns. 

4. This tower is completely empty, no floors or inner walls. There is however a nest of killer bees, and the entrance is partially hidden under some wooden beams

5. An old temple is so overrun with trees that it has almost eaten all the usable space on it. Eight acolytes still worship a female idol, with the classic emerald eyes that are worth 300 sp each. Their leader is a 4th level cleric.

6. Six snakes (spitting cobras). Will attack if the PCs open any furniture or stay for more than three turns.

7. 158 sp hidden on a cupboard. There is a window partially blocked by a tree.

8. There is a lush jungle into this room. Plants seem to vanish like smoke when touched, but instantly reform. It is, obviously, an illusion. You can see an overture into the wall that can be accessed through a stairs and that leads to a small bridge/balcony. You cannot see, however, a box with 350 sp plainly put on the floor, because the illusion covers it.

9. This stairs lead to the top of the tower, Anyone fighting somebody who is downstairs has +1 to hit and +1 AC.

10. This is the floor over room (17) and it is accessed trough it. The door at north actually gets you in room (17) but I draw like that, so read it first. Anyways, room (10): A rope leads up into a darkened tower. If the players try to climb it, it will ring the bell of the old church instead (the rope leads only to the bell, which is worth 150 gp if somebody can transport it). The bell faint ring will last for fifteen minutes at least, and while its sounding, all nearby illusions will vanish. Also, four orcs from the guarding point at (14) will come to check who is touching shit at the bell tower. 

11. This bars can be bent just as a stuck door,  so you can access the sewer.

12. There are two guardians at each side of the door to room (13). They carry naginatas and no armor, just robes and a chinese-type wide hat that hides their eyes, no matter how near the PCs get. They have a very faint blueish hue. They are illusory, and its creator wasn't good at rendering eyes. They seem to breathe, but they won't talk or move otherwise. This encounter seemed stupid to me when I created it, but it's the one that my players struggled more with. They haven't made up their minds to cross that door, that is completelly unlocked.

13. There is nothing in this room of value, looks like an old granary.  However, there is very worn out illusion (each character has a 3 in 6 chance to actually notice it)  of a kid holding a woman's hand. Both walk through an illusory wheat field, and the woman holds the rein of an illusory horse.

14. Eight orcs guard the bridge: four have bows and are atop of the bridge itself. Other four have spears and wait beside the stairs.

15. The bridge leads into this tower, but orcs will avoid it. It has a spider crab on the roof, will fall over anyone entering the room by that entrance.

16. This is a mezzanine over room 15. You can see the spider from here. There are also some books on the shelves: searching for secret stuff will give you a magical book about birds that projects a faint flying hawk 40 cm over the pages when opened. Worth 200 sp to the right customer.

17. This was a church in better times. It is raining inside this room, but it doesn't actually soak you, because it's illusory. The old stairs are destroyed, but a rope will get you to the first floor (10). Use dex or str checks if you feel like it.

18. A stuck iron door will get you into the city through the sewers. Outside, there is a peaceful, rocky grassland.

19. A poisonous pink flower grows in here. 2 in 6 chance every turn for anyone to get sleepy: save or fall asleep to eventual death unless woken up. There is an iron door that will easy open, and will take you into the city.

20. Three lizard geckos live in this tower. They can access (21) easily by climbing, but PCs cannot do so. Its 10 meters high,

21. Stairs get into this inner balcony from the street. You find the body of a half- eaten adventurer. A silver dagger can be found with its point buried deep into the wooden floor. 

South of this tower, there is a bunch of trees that difficult access. It is scratched on the paper because my PCs burnt it.

22. This room is empty

23. A hobbit is hidden here, conveniently guarded by a door blocked by branches. He is devoted to paint the illusory tower every night, with a brush, a palette and a canvas. He is obsessed with the idea to capture its fleetingness, and its ethereal beauty. He is too hard on himself and his previous works (2d6 pictures stashed in a side of the room) but will trade them for any food supplies, or anything that can be made into pigments or a canvas. It's not related to hobbits at room (2). The window at south lets you watch all the panorama, with the tower in front of you. But you cannot see the orcs under it's shade. The hobbit will warn you they are there, though.

24. This room can be accessed by the bridge in the north wall. There is a trapdoor at the floor leading into (23). The wood around it is rotten and anyone approaching has a 2 in 6 chance to fall into said room. The fall will give you a penalty of -2 to hit and lower your MV by one unless you pass your save.

25. This part of the wall is easy to climb from the outside, but is is guarded by a treant. This is probably too big for the players to face but there he is. It should be obvious and scary

26. This room is accessed through the sewers. It contains a human corpse with 30 gp

27. Access to the tower. The ground floor of the tower has no walls, only columns. Amongst the darkness, there are some stairs hidden that lead to the first floor. There are also 9 orcs with spears and daggers and their leader (double HP, magical shield +1, spear and sword) 

28. Two orc lookouts will shoot with their bows to anyone that gets into their range, and blow the alarm horn if you manage to escape the first shots. Accessing this building is difficult because there are overgrown trees in the way.

29. Two more orcs with spears and daggers guard a big stash: 100 gp and 800 sp

WANDERING MONSTER CHECKS

1 in 6 chance of encounter for every turn the PCs are on the street, or 3 in 6 per rest assuming they rest in the city and make watch through a window or something. The first time the result is rolled, use the first noted encounter. All the other times, use the second.

1. A flock of blue illusory birds passing right through you // 1d6 Orcs

2. 1d4 Spider Crabs

3. Illusory princess, walking towards room 17, then dissapears // 1d6 Acolytes

4. 1d6 Antelopes

5. A Trader (human) // 1d6 Killer Bees

6. A small treant (5HD). Will not attack unless PCs scare him with fire, harm him or any plant on the city.

Gridless Movement

 I thought I had already written this one. But before I forget I do it now:

I am spanish. I do not use feet, yards or pounds in my real life, neither do my players. The translations of those words (pies, yardas y libras) sounds weird in our conversations and I wont use them ever on a game. So, for movement, I use squares instead. In the end, one square is universally equal to 10 feet. So, when I see this extract of BX rules, I assume that an unencumbered human can walk 12 squares on a normal turn, and 4 during combat:

The plot gets thicker: I don't use gridded paper for dungeons, and if I do it's only for aesthetic reasons. I don't measure walking distances. Players can spend a turn getting into a new room, doing something meaningful into the room they are now, or walking a significant chunk of a corridor. So in the end I am using the square unit even if I do not track squares (unless I could do it on a very specific situation that calls for it).

The only other time when movement rates are meaningful is when there are enemies, pursued and persecutors. An enemy that can move 6 squares in combat will catch a PC that can move only 4. To prevent this deterministic fate, rules allow to distract monsters with food, gold, burning oil, or turning into a random direction if there is any (50% chance the monster catches them anyways).

To sever my dependency from this procedures, I'd implemented a randomized MV that works more or less inside the spectre of the old one:

PCs have a MV value equal to the squares they can walk in combat (so, following the table above, it ranges from 4 to 1). When running, or when measuring the normal move is meaningful, they move MV+d6 squares (that is a maximum of 100 to 50 feet, more or less similar to the 120' - 30' range above). The math doesnt suit much but I dont care, the speed is still proportional to encumbrance and that is what matters. 

When in combat, you can do it like this too, why not. But I prefer rolling 1d6 equal or under your MV: If you pass, you engage, disengage, outrace, etc. your opponent, who must also do the same to make you negate this advantage. A failure means you waste your turn, while a success allows you to perform your normal action for the turn. For contests amongst or against monters with 6 or more MV (moving 60' or more in combat) use 5 as their MV.

This methods work equally great with or without a grid, as you can count the squares or just compare rolls against an enemy while the GM narrates accordingly. This will also give you a chance to flee any monster indefinitelly as long as the dice gods allow you.

Monster Lairs, Monster Treasure

I have been playing with BX's procedural dungeon generation, and it's really fun. Creating a dungeon level is such a wonderful way to spend a spring night. But there was a detail that I could not figure out about the monster lairs: Treasure was only to be found in monster lairs, yet the dungeon generation seemed to work with the smaller number of monsters only (and they don't have any assigned "% in lair" attribute like in other editions). Finally, by reading an unvaluable Delta's article this very night, I understood that there was nothing to be understood: there is an ambiguity in the rules that seems to be resolved by assuming that all monsters in the dungeon have an "% in lair" of 100%; or, which is the same, all dungeon encounters are balanced towards their own treasure by using their largest number appearing. 

Of course, it might be strange that you open a door in a dungeon and you find there 30 men guarding their #A treasure. So, maybe, it could be a good idea to assume that they have made a lair in that section of the dungeon, and they are tactically and organically disposed along a space of otherwise empty rooms. 

And now that this is settled, I want to expose my conundrum with treasure types. I already spoke about how I use the averages and make two rolls to make a small variance and decide the predominant shape of it. I found recently an anonymous chart that had done a similar work, also translating the magic item chances to d6:

I still want to find another way. Maybe is just habit, or something in me likes to find the formula that obsoletes the chart. Because, in the end, the three factors (amount of riches, amount of jewelry among the riches and amount of magic items) are kind of proportional and it feels natural to tie them to something in the monster. One OSR game for kids, DAGGER, uses monster's HD + 1d6 against this table: 1-3 no treasure, 4-5 coin purse, 6-7 sack of treasure, 8-9 treasure chest. Dungeon World did the same thing but with the monster's damage die instead:

This example looks so bad because the list is totally off from what you would expect in a D&D's treasure, even at high rolls. But serves to illustrate the concept. Probably for a BX variant the best chance would be tying it to HD; always remembering that many monsters do not carry treasure not even in their lairs. Then, adding explicative notes in monster description for special cases: Dragons always have more treasure, as do Men's lairs, to a crazy extreme. Take a look at Delta's table and be astonished:

I went to my faithful tome of Pits and Perils (Not a clone of any D&D edition, its its own thing, but similar enough to make style comparisons) and here are the notes:

Treasure types are divided into four (I, II, III and IV) in respect to treasure amount. Each one decuplicates the previous one. Those are at the same time divided into type A treasures (natural treasures such as monster body parts or spider webs that take X turns to be harvested, more info on the monster's description) and type B treasures (your classic coins and gems)

With every type increase, also the jewelry and magic item chance increase (also the magic item quality). With the table as it is, there is only the chance of 1 magic item per monster, but it is trivial to hack this to give it more variance: instead of 2, 3 and 4 in 6 chance for types II, III and IV, you roll 2, 3 or 4 six sided dice, with each roll of 1 being one item.

The four types approach is also tempting. I like that the details of treasure are provided in the monster description too, both in amount and in nature. But maybe not even those four types are needed: I think that treasure amount could be written in the monster stats as: 

Treasure: Y/N?

If yes, check how much by making a roll based on monster's HD. If there is an arterisk, check description for specifics (add or take money, items, magic...)

There is also a very different approach, which is the one that I am using at the moment. I took it from this very interesting piece by a mysterious author called Lungfungus. I actually went to print and bind that book alongside The Implied OD&D Setting by Wayne Rossi because I love to have that kind of books at home. 

The concept I am testing is to standarize the average treasure amount of a treasure room in a level 1 dungeon, taking into account monster, trap, empty and special rooms (I give special rooms 1 in 6 chance of treasure, just like an empty one). Using my own parameters, I calculated that this number is 292 gp per room containing treasure. This number is the same, no matter if the room has a monster, a trap, or neither. Then I randomize the amount with a table, ensuring that in average, the result is still 292 gp; 

1 - 25% treasure

2 - 50% treasure

3 - 75 % treasure

4 - 100 % treasure

5 - 150% treasure

6 - 200% treasure

(for example, in a d6 table, the average result will go towards 292 or any other set number, as long as all the percentages sum 600%, as 600 split between 6 results makes for the 100%)

Multiply the given number for the dungeon level you are currently at, to make it grow proportionally to danger. This progression is the same used in AD&D.

This method has the particularity that makes all monsters equal towards treasure, unless you specifically decide against it. So, for example, by giving them individual treasure. This also makes monster-guarded treasure equal in size to trap-guarded or non-guarded one. It is not as crazy as it sounds, if you picture it as that the particular monster that put it in there doesn't feel the need to be guarding it 24h, 365 days a year. The box is already on a deadly dungeon, and he might be lurking around as a wandering monster, or waiting in another room. 

An idea for vancian magic

"Everytime you cast a spell, instead of losing the spell you just casted, you cross out any other spell of the same or higher level instead; unless that was your last available one, in which case, you lose that spell"

It doesn't really fix my quest for the perfect magic system, but it feels like an improvement towards the original: Now you can use the same spell more than once per day, which is how you would expect magic to work in any fantasy setting (except, of course, Dying Earth, from which vancian magic is taken). If I see a wizard casting a fireball, I would prepare against another fireball and try to close range with him as much as possible, so he cannot cast another one on me without hurting himself. In the D&D world, however, you are completely safe from another fireball, as you are sure he cannot even prepare the same spell twice.

Also I like that you can explain it as making the spell you cast becoming more and more present in your brain the more you cast it; the obsession feeding on the other possibilities you had prepared (the rest of the spells)

The problem I perceive is more "conceptual" than "gamist". But, on that side, it allows you to prepare a lot of absurd spells and burn them away once you feel that you are probably not using them that day. That, while using the ones you need without being unnecesarily stingy. I also like that it doesn't change the game at Magic User's level 1, but can be a gamechanger at level 3 or higher: Each new spell gives you much more possibilities on every rest.

EDIT: As you can see on the comments, I have been mistaken all my D&D life, and MUs can prepare spells twice (nowhere mentioned explicitly on BX but I was just assuming they couldn't). This is why its cool to have a blog, I'd still play like that if I hadn't talked about it here. STILL I think my idea is useful to allow casters to spam the same spell multiple times, while still giving them variety of spells at the same time. Are they too OP? maybe. 

BXraw: Fighter VS Halfling

Are Halflings just better than Fighters? They share the same XP and Attack progression. Armor for halflings is only limited by the availability of halfling sized gear (which depends on the setting, I guess) Let's put the advantages of each one towards the other:

FIGHTERS:

- Can use 2-handed weapons (that lose initiative anyways). Use of the d8 longsword is ambiguous, though I'd rule that halflings can only use short swords. If not using the variable weapon damage, this point is ruled obsolete. 

- They can use all magical swords that happen to be not short. 

- Use d8 for hit points instead of d6 (that is 1 puny point on average per level, Fighters can even roll badly and lose that edge)

- One prime attribute (str) instead of two (str and dex) which is irrelevant if you roll the minimum DEX or you happen to ignore prime attributes (like I do)

- No level cap (which has no relevance until level 8)

HALFLINGS:

- Saving throws equal to a fighter seven levels above you

- Shooting arrows or ranged weapons at +1. That is attacking like a fighter one level above you at all times (sometimes two levels)

- Armor class enhanced by 2 versus enemies larger than humans. This is a surprisingly large spectrum in a game like D&D, from bears to basilisks to ogres to dragons

- When using individual initiative they get a +1

- 90% chance of dissappearing in woods or underbrush

- 1 in 3 chance of hiding in normal light when there are shadows or covers present, as long as they remain still. 

- The non-despicable advantage of being lightweight. It is much easier to take out of the dungeon an unconscious or deceased halfling, load it in your own horse and head towards a local temple, than doing the same with a grown up man. This can be an important thing depending on how you rule encumbrance.

This all started because I was running a game following strict RAW rules, then went looking into the book to check if there were any strength or encumbrance caps for hobbits and I found nothing. I started reading to check how the fact that you are a 90 cm person is portrayed in the context of combat and such, and I realized that there is no real downsides at all. Suddently I found it so weird.  

My last houserules are too complex to be summarized like NOW!, but basically I run them as thieves with better saving throws (like a fighter four levels above), with STR capped at 12, and encumbrance based on STR. I intend to make a full post about them soon. Just remember that 12 dwarves picked up a hobbit once because they needed a thief to go into the dragon's lair. 

Art taken from Pits & Perils by James and Robyn George. 

On Rules-lite or Rules light

 

stephanie grunwald - drive by night

After reading both Prince and Noisms take on rules-lite games, I wanted to write my own article on the subject. To make it clearer, I won't adress their points in here, I already did on their comments, suffice to say that while I enjoyed their reading, my point of view is tangential. 

I have collected tons of One-Page rpgs, starting back in 2012. I don't like all of them, of course, but as a design fanatic, I often like how they have resolved a certain mechanic (like alignment in Jung Guns), or how they have evoked a certain feeeling with a paragraph or a layout (Raygun Gothic, Travel Journal of Short Tales). It is true that they are often highly unplayable.

As Prince attests, many of them fall back on D&D to cover their gaps. Many more are innocent attempts at fixing D&D forever or just novel ideas that sound awesome in the author's head but have no sense on the page, and much less on the table (I love those. I have made a bunch of those too). Others (more and more everytime) are just made to look nice, with little care of the actual rules, probably because their author doesn't even think on playing it.

As I see it, the problem with rules-light games is not about they having little space or little rules. The problem is that they usually cut off the wrong rules. 

As I pointed out on previous articles, the core rules of a game are those that create and push the game's biorhythm, as opposed to its conflict resolution rules. 

The core rules of D&D are XP for gold, the dungeon generation rules that create rooms with gold alongside rooms with monsters, monsters and gold, dangers and traps, and the "level up" boon-unlocking dynamic for characters and dungeons. You play to level up, and adventure happens in the process. Using a d20 to hit or 2d6 vs an adjusted TN can have interesting effects, but won't change the game's nature in the slightest bit. 

Most published games, even rules-heavy ones, don't even have core rules. They just have conflict resolution rules. And that is frustrating because that is not gameable. They have lore bricks instead, and you must make a mission-based game with whatever you can assemble from it. Rules-light games often go the same road, working on innovative, clean or personal resolution rules (usually chargen+combat+equipment) and vague or absent procedures to conduct the game.

No, Maze Rats tables may be a great oracle, but are not a game procedure. It does have rough guidelines, though, on how do dungeons, cities and wildernesses look, and at least mentions the use of wandering monsters. But having XP per session + extra XP for abstractly overcoming a difficult challenge, the game can or cannot feature dungeons or loot of any kind. In fact the game can be about anything. Which seems liberating yet also kind of aimless: players must set their own drives, in a world they don't really know yet. But I am sure it works in the end.

Knave doesn't even have that. I think it was maybe conceived as an alternate chargen/combat/spells for D&D and was considered a full game by some at some point. In any case, OSR-related games have an advantage: the more a game gets closer to the OSR purity, the better it can use its resources: falling back on D&D to fill the gaps or using published modules. I think Searchers of the Unknown was built for the latter in mind too. 

But it would be unfair to accuse rules-light games of this sin, when big games do commit it constantly. Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example, is written in two big tomes (player guide and referee guide) and somehow forgets to fit any setting, a bestiary, procedures for generating monsters, dungeons, adventure sites or adventure of any kind. It offers some advice on the tone the author wants to convey, but the advice feels short and falls on a void. 

World of Dungeons: Turbo Breakers, being three pages long, achieves to include useful gameable setting elements (the rifts, a countdown to the Cloud of Woe, an archmage called Kai Shira Kai, a Bestiary and a guide to create monsters, etc). 

Into the Odd: One page version, on a single page, allows you to run a dungeon without any preparation, filled with monsters, social encounters and traps; and teaches you to make a similar one by altering the tables therein. If you put simple advancement rules (maybe +1 to an attribute if you roll over it, and +1 to hp for each dungeon completed) and you have enough depth to make a long campaign using that rules alone. 

And as a word of advice: for people who has already read some Lovecraft enough to be familiar with the setting, will find the same or more useful stuff in the 4-page Cthulhu Dark and its companions than in the classic Chaosium tomes, all ripe with an astounding amount of nothing. You will still have to come up with an adventure yourself, but at least you will save time and effort.

So yes, rules light doesnt have to mean depth-light. I actually think they are a good paradigm for designers to learn and test things: the shorter a game is to write, the faster you can test it and re-shape it as needed. Minimalism has no inherent value on itself, but there is a limit on how complex you can make a ruleset without it becoming unwieldy. As I like to see it: the more minimal your rules are in one aspect, the more you can complicate the game in another. For example, getting some minimal rules for combat allows me to make extensive and fussy rules for handling horses without overloading players with information. This way you can add simplicity and complexity to things depending on how you want to portray them on the game you have in mind. 

Recently I put down the advancement rules for Monks and Mummies, one of my many chimeras. I found out that it was actually the hardest part of the game to come up with, and possibly the most important. Now that I know what the game is about, I think I can put the rest together """easily""". The rest of the game is sort of falling into place by itself. And thinking about this ruleslite things this days I have realized that it might not fit in one page, but I can see all the concept fitting on four or five. Let's see.