Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749387Microsoft Access

* Orson Welles doing a slow clap *

Quote from: S'mon;749246No, no you don't. Making adjudications & rulings - that's what being a DM means.

Furthermore, it's the FUN part.  If I want to just enforce rules, I'll run a miniatures wargame scenario.

In fact, making adjudications and rulings is a big part of being a minis judge too.  No ruleset covers everything.

And in 42 years I've noticed rules-heavy miniatures wargames rules don't give more historical results or more fun in play, they're just harder to run.

The new 3.5 toaster design is out, it looks like this:

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/cockpit_photos/u2_cockpit.jpg

Wow, look how complex it is... that must be a good and modern design... y'know, because it's so complicated.

Every possible "toast making variable" has been aligned to a sensor... you can program it to toast your bread in just a few hours... what a great design... Unwarranted complication is the hallmark of elegant design!

Dunnagin, I think that some GMs who like rules-heavy systems feel like rules-light systems don't provide sufficient detail.  To follow your cockpit example: imagine trying to fly a plane with no autopilot, no altimeter, no navigation display, no flight plan, etc, just a couple of joysticks and a throttle.  The plane might still be technically flyable, and a really good pilot might still be able to make it function, but there are going to be lots of crashes, especially by the inexperienced.  All those dials and needles may be, in some philosophical sense, "unnecessary," but they help the pilot fly the plane.

Simulating an entire imaginary world inhabited by fictional characters who need to interact with one another in complex ways is, in a lot of ways, not as simple a proposition as "making toast."  Some GMs prefer a complex machine in much the same way that pilots probably prefer a proper flight display and set of instruments to help them fly their craft.

Quote from: Steerpike;749435Dunnagin, I think that some GMs who like rules-heavy systems feel like rules-light systems don't provide sufficient detail.  To follow your cockpit example: imagine trying to fly a plane with no autopilot, no altimeter, no navigation display, no flight plan, etc, just a couple of joysticks and a throttle.  The plane might still be technically flyable, and a really good pilot might still be able to make it function, but there are going to be lots of crashes, especially by the inexperienced.  All those dials and needles may be, in some philosophical sense, "unnecessary," but they help the pilot fly the plane.

Simulating an entire imaginary world inhabited by fictional characters who need to interact with one another in complex ways is, in a lot of ways, not as simple a proposition as "making toast."  Some GMs prefer a complex machine in much the same way that pilots probably prefer a proper flight display and set of instruments to help them fly their craft.

A pilot has a high level of responsibility... inaccuracy could cause people to die.

No one will die if my elf can jump higher than your elf.

So yes, D&D needs to be as "accurate" as toast making in my book.

It's just for fun... and I don't allow it to take on more weight than that.

Quote from: DunnaginA pilot has a high level of responsibility... inaccuracy could cause people to die.

No one will die if my elf can jump higher than your elf.

So yes, D&D needs to be as "accurate" as toast making in my book.

It's just for fun... and I don't allow it to take on more weight than that.

Of course, I agree that the stakes are different in D&D than in piloting.  The stakes aren't life or death, but the difference between a fun game and a less-than-fun game.  The worst that can happen is that a game gets run that's not satisfying to the participants.

I also agree that "accuracy" isn't necessarily a wise design goal, but I don't think rules-heavy games need to be "accurate" per se. Pathfinder/3.X is a very complex game, but players can have 100s of HP and do insane cinematic things at higher levels; realism isn't necessarily being privileged.  That doesn't mean all the rules are there "just because" or that they don't help some GMs run their games.  Simply because the stakes are low doesn't mean that players can't be frustrated, bored, annoyed, or otherwise disengaged from the game.  In my particular experience, a plenitude of rules help me prevent these negative outcomes.  Naturally, of course, this isn't true for every group of every GM - other approaches work better for different players.

Personally, I'd find having fewer rules in place would add to the stress of running a game for me and decrease the fun I have while running a game.  I'd find the pressure to make fair, coherent, and balanced rulings exacerbated by the lack of a well-developed rules foundation.  I'd end up spending more mental energy trying to ensure that the rules I concocted on the fly were fair and consistent than I'd like.  That said, I've run some rules-light games and still had fun - it depends on the type of game I'm running.  But usually, for me, a robust and detailed rules systems maximizes the pleasures of the game while minimizing frustration, boredom, and disengagement.

I'm certainly not saying that rules-light approaches are wrong, or that everyone GMs in the same way that I do or needs/desires the same mechanics as I do; quite the opposite.  Merely that I don't crave complexity for its own sake - rather I find that a complex (but clear, accessible, and intuitive) rules systems actually helps me run a game by doing some of the work of making rulings for me, and facilitating my own rulings, rather than leaving me to make up my own rules for things without any help. This frees me up to direct more of my creative efforts into things like providing good descriptions, playing NPCs, and performing the myriad other tasks inherent in running a game.

Quote from: Steerpike;749455Of course, I agree that the stakes are different in D&D than in piloting.  The stakes aren't life or death, but the difference between a fun game and a less-than-fun game.  The worst that can happen is that a game gets run that's not satisfying to the participants.

I also agree that "accuracy" isn't necessarily a wise design goal, but I don't think rules-heavy games need to be "accurate" per se. Pathfinder/3.X is a very complex game, but players can have 100s of HP and do insane cinematic things at higher levels; realism isn't necessarily being privileged.  That doesn't mean all the rules are there "just because" or that they don't help some GMs run their games.  Simply because the stakes are low doesn't mean that players can't be frustrated, bored, annoyed, or otherwise disengaged from the game.  In my particular experience, a plenitude of rules help me prevent these negative outcomes.  Naturally, of course, this isn't true for every group of every GM - other approaches work better for different players.

Personally, I'd find having fewer rules in place would add to the stress of running a game for me and decrease the fun I have while running a game.  I'd find the pressure to make fair, coherent, and balanced rulings exacerbated by the lack of a well-developed rules foundation.  I'd end up spending more mental energy trying to ensure that the rules I concocted on the fly were fair and consistent than I'd like.  That said, I've run some rules-light games and still had fun - it depends on the type of game I'm running.  But usually, for me, a robust and detailed rules systems maximizes the pleasures of the game while minimizing frustration, boredom, and disengagement.

I'm certainly not saying that rules-light approaches are wrong, or that everyone GMs in the same way that I do or needs/desires the same mechanics as I do; quite the opposite.  Merely that I don't crave complexity for its own sake - rather I find that a complex (but clear, accessible, and intuitive) rules systems actually helps me run a game by doing some of the work of making rulings for me, and facilitating my own rulings, rather than leaving me to make up my own rules for things without any help. This frees me up to direct more of my creative efforts into things like providing good descriptions, playing NPCs, and performing the myriad other tasks inherent in running a game.

Any way you want to play is fine by me, if you're having fun, more power to you.

I do not take D&D overly serious.

To extend the toast analogy:

I call a few friends up and invite them over to hang out and I'm going to make us all some toast.

My friends arrive.

Friend 1 says: His toast has more butter than mine! Your toast making is unbalanced!!

Friend 2 says: I only eat toast that's cooked by the "Toaster 3.5 748 Cockpit Machine", because I want my toast created very accurately.

Friend 3 says: My toast was buttered left to right... but the toast makers bible says it should be buttered right to left!

I tell them to get out of my house.

They did not come over for a good time with friends, obviously.

I'll invite over some friends who don't take toast so seriously... and we'll have a few laughs.

You can make anything painful and overly complex... I just don't enjoy that.

one wonders about that excluded middle, or if anyone bothers to read posts before showering us with their golden 'wisdom' about what they think it is about.

Dunnagin, not only are you examples ridiculous, and your ability to see beyond the anecdotal microscopic, but on top of that, Gleichman agrees with you.   If you'd been around, you'd understand what that means about your position.


Seriously, Rules-light has a lot to offer.   And while so does rules-heavy, it is true when you screw it up, rules-lite has more avenues to adjudicate around the bad rules and it does so faster, whereas a bad rules-heavy games even a good GM is slow and can't save the game.

It's art, no matter how pundit hates that viewpoint.  The simpler the medium, the quicker and more accessable it is and the more people who can do something with it.  ANd a true artist can still make amazing and better pictures with crayons.

Rules-heavy is a harder and less forgiving medium, either in game design or play.  Your artist can make unbelievable masterpieces, given time.  But it exposes flaws very, very quickly.

Quote from: LordVreeg;749464Dunnagin, not only are you examples ridiculous, and your ability to see beyond the anecdotal microscopic, but on top of that, Gleichman agrees with you.   If you'd been around, you'd understand what that means about your position.

And you as always never really read a thing I write, if you did you'd know that it's highly unlikely that agree with him.

Yes, I'd say that well designed heavy rules that actually simulate a setting and genre are when properly ran are wonderful thing.

And I don't think for a moment that there is a single person here who either uses well designed heavy rules or is capable of properly running them. Most have never been exposed to even a single element of those requirements. And frankly I don't think *anyone* on this site or most others of its nature has been exposed to all of them.

Browsing threads like this is worst than listening to blind men talking about elephants. It's painful.

I'm the one dropping "pearls of wisdom"... while you say "elf game is actually art"... really?

Quote from: gleichman;749468And I don't think for a moment that there is a single person here who either uses well designed heavy rules or is capable of properly running them. Most have never been exposed to even a single element of those requirements. And frankly I don't think *anyone* on this site or most others of its nature has been exposed to all of them.

So what game is it that is a rules heavy game that is "well-designed"?

I'm genuinely curious.  You're making a HUGE assumption there, and I'd like to know what your definition of a "well-designed rules-heavy game" really is.

As far as "capable of properly running one", well, bite me.  Entering conversations with "you're incompetent and couldn't even become competent if you tried" is pretty arrogant, and isn't really conducive to discussion.

Quote from: robiswrong;749470As far as "capable of properly running one", well, bite me.  Entering conversations with "you're incompetent and couldn't even become competent if you tried" is pretty arrogant, and isn't really conducive to discussion.

New here, are we?

Quote from: gleichman;749468And you as always never really read a thing I write, if you did you'd know that it's highly unlikely that agree with him.

Yes, I'd say that well designed heavy rules that actually simulate a setting and genre are when properly ran are wonderful thing.

And I don't think for a moment that there is a single person here who either uses well designed heavy rules or is capable of properly running them. Most have never been exposed to even a single element of those requirements. And frankly I don't think *anyone* on this site or most others of its nature has been exposed to all of them.

Browsing threads like this is worst than listening to blind men talking about elephants. It's painful.

Thank god we have you to show us the way then.

Glad you agree with the comments about what Rules-heavier is good for.  I'm sorry I'm doing it wrong with my rules-heavy 200 session campaigns, or all the creation of and writing on of setting-specific rules.  As I said, it is far messier and easier to screw up, but I agree it can take a game places it can't go otherwise.
I'm always willing to go over this with you.

Dunnagin, no art for you and your crayola.

Quote from: robiswrong;749470So what game is it that is a rules heavy game that is "well-designed"?

I'm genuinely curious.  You're making a HUGE assumption there, and I'd like to know what your definition of a "well-designed rules-heavy game" really is.

As far as "capable of properly running one", well, bite me.  Entering conversations with "you're incompetent and couldn't even become competent if you tried" is pretty arrogant, and isn't really conducive to discussion.

Oh, I'll take the blame for setting him on his side.  He came in backing a bad position, I thought and then he did start to make some sense.

I'm also curious because a few Denners have shown up here before talking about some mythical "well-designed game", but never seem to be able to actually pony up this mythical system.

I don't know that gleichmann is a Denner, but whenver anybody makes an argument of the type "that's just because all of the games you play are crap, you're not playing a good one," I get real curious about what this supposed good game is.