Quote from: GnomeWorks;748843The rules are guaranteed to be consistent because they are written.

Really? I don't like crappy rules even if they are consistent. Guaranteed consistency puts RAW over situation and next thing you know we're tripping oozes and knocking them prone, mindless undead come running due to aggro mechanics and other silliness. All this is utterly craptastic but hey, it's consistent, & reliable and guaranteed to be just as fuckall stupid the 100th time it happens as it was for the first.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748843If consistency is not important to you, then we're not going to agree. Consistency is of high importance to me.

I agree with this part. I do not rely only on the rules for consistency though. It is the game world I value consistency in, and the RAW is not the game world. A combination of rules and common sense judgement is required to provide the needed consistency while maintaining the availability of all options to players.

Quote from: Benoist;748834A rules-heavy game doesn't necessarily imply that it's build and/or played by people who can't play with others, or who'd consider other players children who would need to be tied to the rules. Sometimes a set of rules is just to play with and some players just want more of it for more fun at the game table. For me, Rolemaster is fun because of the individual weapons tables, because of the types of critical hits and fumbles you get, the zillion of different types of spell lists, etc etc. So if you'd take that away to get a lighter game system, part of the fun of playing this particular game would be taken away from me. I can see that working too for people who like feats, or whatever.

That said, the trend to build self-contained rules systems, light OR heavy, that basically encompass everything and box in the game play because the rules are supposed to be above everyone around the table INCLUDING the referee, that's a thing now too, definitely. It's just not directly related to the amount of rules covered by the books, but the nature of those rules instead, IMO.

Right with me.  There are times that rules light are the best route, but times having rules that delineate things you want to happen in the game or that highlight the setting feel makes for a better game.  All depends on the circumstance.

But if it boxes in the potential....well, that is why the original game took off.

One thing that I find is helpful is getting away from abstracts and getting to actual, concrete issues.  So I'm going to take a minute and do that.

I'm also not arguing that rules-heavy games don't bring things to the table.  They do.  I don't find that they fix "problems" in rules-light games, as those issues are, in my experience, generally player problems.  The problem players I've dealt with in rules-light games also tend to be problem players in rules-heavy games.

Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "Roll... you got a ?  You fall to your death."

Assumed problem
The player can't predict the difficulty of the climb, and therefore can't tell if it's a good idea or not.

Presumed fix
If the player can figure out the difficulty of the climb, they can't be surprised.

What happens...
The GM just adds more modifiers for slickness, incline, etc.

Actual problem:
The GM isn't giving the player information they should know, which in many ways can be summed up with the difficulty, which should almost always be known *before* the attempt.

Actual solution:
The GM should tell the player things they should know.  A person experienced at climbing walls should be able to get a good idea, which can be summed up in a target number, of how difficult a climb is.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "It's going to take an to succeed."

Assumed problem
The GM can arbitrarily set the difficulty, and does so without thought of what's happening

Presumed fix
If the difficulties are prescribed by math, the GM will have to come up with reasonable numbers.

What happens...
The GM just adds more modifiers for slickness, incline, etc. to get the number they want.

Actual problem:
The GM doesn't want players to succeed at something, and isn't being honest about it.  Illusionism 101.

Actual solution:
The GM should be more prepared to wing it and go with player-presented solutions to problems, rather than what they "thought" would happen.  If that's not viable, own up to it and ask the players to just go along with it.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "That's a tough wall, with .  It'll be DC 25."
Player:  "But I've climbed walls like that before and they were DC 20!"

Assumed problem
The GM is inconsistent with their descriptions.

Presumed fix
If the modifiers are codified, there will be consistency.

What happens...
The GM just adds more modifiers.

Actual problem:
The player assumes that all walls with similar descriptions are in fact equal.  In reality, a "rough wall" can be of varying difficulty to climb for any number of reasons.  The GM just learns to add up the appropriate modifiers for the target difficulty before describing the wall.

Actual solution:
Recognize that the GM is just going to set the difficulty anyway, and accept that some things that, on the surface, look similar can actually be different.  If it seems like there's an ulterior motive (often illusionism), deal with that directly.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "That's a tough wall to climb.  DC 25."
Player:  "This exact wall was DC 20 last time!"

Assumed problem
The GM is inconsistent with assigning difficulties.

Presumed fix
If the number is calculated, the GM will be consistent.

What happens...
The GM forgets a modifier, and is *still* inconsistent.

Actual problem:
The GM isn't taking sufficient notes for areas the players are likely to go back and visit.

Acutal solution:
Write down shit that's likely to come up again.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "That'll be a DC 25."
Player:  "That's bullshit!"

Assumed problem
The player won't accept a judgement from the GM.

Presumed fix
If the difficulty is calculated, the player will accept the number.

What happens...
The player argues that some of the modifiers aren't appropriate to this scenario.

Actual problem:
The player can't accept that some things won't go the way they want.

Actual solution:
Have a talk with the player, and explain that that's how it goes.  If they can't accept judgements, they're going to be disruptive and aren't welcome.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "Yeah, it's a sheer wall.  You can't climb it."
Player:  "But could!"

Assumed problem
The GM's being a dick and won't let you do things/the player is being a dick and wants stupid things.

Presumed fix
If it's baked into the rules, you can do things.

What happens...
The GM just adds things to prevent you from doing it anyway.

Actual problem:
There's not an agreement on what game you're playing.  The GM thinks you're playing gritty, while the player thinks you're playing cinematic.

Acutal solution:
Talk to each other, and come to an agreement on what the tone of the game is and, in general, what should and should not be expected.


Situation:
Player:  "I climb the wall."
GM:  "Shit.  I have no idea of how difficult this should be."

Assumed problem
Coming up with difficulties on the fly is hard.

Presumed fix
If it's all calculated, it's easier.

What happens...
Well, in a rules-heavy system, this actually works out.

Actual problem:
The system is opaque enough with charop/etc. that judging difficulties is genuinely difficult.

Acutal solution:
Well... for a char-op heavy game, the codification may be the correct answer - but it's still solving a problem that the crunch-heavy game *created*.  Simpler games tend not to have this issue.  But yeah, applying a "rulings-first" mentality in a game that's already high crunch is probably going to cause issues.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748862Right with me.  There are times that rules light are the best route, but times having rules that delineate things you want to happen in the game or that highlight the setting feel makes for a better game.  All depends on the circumstance.

Right, but those are positive things that the rules add to the experience, rather than arguing that they prevent arguments caused by insufficient rules.

a) there's a huge difference between a game having a rule for everything and a game requiring you to use a rule for everything – an easy example would be grid/miniatures combat in AD&D. I tend to like having rules available to me, generally

b) a much more interesting question would probably be "when do you want to use a rule for something?" My two cents here is that using rules emphasizes certain actions by making a (sometimes little-tiny) set-piece of them, and also by saying "this must be adjudicated with additional fairness". Why not adjudicate everything with "additional fairness", though? First, pacing, and secondly the global application of rules especially in a pen-and-paper system (thus necessarily simplified) is going to reveal nonsensical spots and areas for exploits – it's not necessarily that fair in other words. It's the feel of additional fairness that counts (which also may require consistency and the development of house rules as opposed to ad-hoc rulings all the time, depending on your group). Additionally, global rules-as-physics never really applies to pen and paper RPGs – are you using rules for worldgen? Very little even in your full-supplement-stack 3e games and such.

Quote from: Imp;748872a) there's a huge difference between a game having a rule for everything and a game requiring you to use a rule for everything – an easy example would be grid/miniatures combat in AD&D. I tend to like having rules available to me, generally

I suspect this invalidates the "less arguing" argument in favor of more rules.  I somehow think that "yes, there's a rule, but I'm not using it" will create more arguments than just using a ruling in the first place

I don't disagree with you about optional rules, though.  Depending on how they're written and presented, they can be really useful.  I do think that's one of those cases where it's better to be upfront about what you are and aren't using.

To talk about ACTUAL cases again:

My hatred of "rules for everything" games is that inevitably they don't have rules for everything, and a significant proportion of referees who use them operate under "if the rules don't specifically allow it you can't do it."  I'm tired of getting "You can't do it because there's not a rule for it and I don't want to figure out how it works under the system."  Not an exaggeration.

42 years of experience has shown me that more rules stifle imagination, they do not enhance it.

And character generation optimization games need to die horribly in a fire screaming and writhing in agony.

Quote from: Tetsubo;748558The latter model expects the GM to adjudicate every 'missing' rule during play. Which leads to inconsistency and endless arguments.

It's never lead to endless arguments at my table -- and my "player guidelines" bluntly tell players that the printed rules are merely guidelines for the GM -- guidelines that the GM can ignore or change at will.

In my experience, the more rules there are the more time is wasted looking up rules (and arguing over which rules should be applied in this this specific case) if one is trying to play anything like RAW. I have no patience with wasting time looking up rules (and no tolerance for arguments over rules) as either a player or a GM. I'd rather the GM take ten seconds to make a decision that works okay and get on with play rather than waste minutes looking stuff up to get it "perfect according to the RAW."

Quote from: RandallS;748893It's never lead to endless arguments at my table -- and my "player guidelines" bluntly tell players that the printed rules are merely guidelines for the GM -- guidelines that the GM can ignore or change at will.

In my experience, the more rules there are the more time is wasted looking up rules (and arguing over which rules should be applied in this this specific case) if one is trying to play anything like RAW. I have no patience with wasting time looking up rules (and no tolerance for arguments over rules) as either a player or a GM. I'd rather the GM take ten seconds to make a decision that works okay and get on with play rather than waste minutes looking stuff up to get it "perfect according to the RAW."

What I don't want is the GM (including myself) to make a different ruling the next time that situation arises. I want greater consistency than that. I want the rules to be there beforehand and as you say I can ignore them if I wish. Better to have  a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it. I am not slave to RAW. But I want us all on the same page as much as possible.

Quote from: RandallS;748893It's never lead to endless arguments at my table -- and my "player guidelines" bluntly tell players that the printed rules are merely guidelines for the GM -- guidelines that the GM can ignore or change at will.

Endless arguments happen in games.  But the constant is almost always the player, not the rule system.  Changing the rule system but not the players results in endless arguments, while changing the players but not the rule sets resolves them.

The idea that there can be a system cut and dried enough to eliminate rules is understandable, but in reality the games that pull this off are very cut-and-dried.  I don't want an RPG to play like chess, or go, or MtG.

(And even MtG took many iterations before it got to the point of being cut-and-dry and removing rules arguments).

Quote from: Tetsubo;748897What I don't want is the GM (including myself) to make a different ruling the next time that situation arises. I want greater consistency than that. I want the rules to be there beforehand and as you say I can ignore them if I wish. Better to have  a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it. I am not slave to RAW. But I want us all on the same page as much as possible.

I think the tradeoffs boil down to:

1) How likely is the exact same situation to come up?  If it's not exactly the same, then some inconsistency can be chalked up to the differing situations.  If you're looking at "exactly the same" from a defined rules widget perspective, it's also a lot more likely than if you're looking at it from a gameworld perspective.  As an example, the difference between a Rough, Stone wall, and the old wall surrounding the village.

2) How consistent is the GM without the guideline of rules?

3) How much value is gained from the additional consistency of rules, given the micro-variations in situation if you're looking at things from a "game world" perspective vs. "mechanical widgets", and how much value is lost in looking those rules up?

And, as a bonus:

4) Do you really think that having a rule and ignoring it will result in fewer arguments than not having a rule and making up a ruling on the spot?

Can you give us an example of a play exchange with inconsistency that you would find unacceptable?

Quote from: Tetsubo;748897What I don't want is the GM (including myself) to make a different ruling the next time that situation arises.

If literally nobody can remember, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Quote from: Imp;748872a) there's a huge difference between a game having a rule for everything and a game requiring you to use a rule for everything – an easy example would be grid/miniatures combat in AD&D. I tend to like having rules available to me, generally

b) a much more interesting question would probably be "when do you want to use a rule for something?" My two cents here is that using rules emphasizes certain actions by making a (sometimes little-tiny) set-piece of them, and also by saying "this must be adjudicated with additional fairness". Why not adjudicate everything with "additional fairness", though? First, pacing, and secondly the global application of rules especially in a pen-and-paper system (thus necessarily simplified) is going to reveal nonsensical spots and areas for exploits – it's not necessarily that fair in other words. It's the feel of additional fairness that counts (which also may require consistency and the development of house rules as opposed to ad-hoc rulings all the time, depending on your group). Additionally, global rules-as-physics never really applies to pen and paper RPGs – are you using rules for worldgen? Very little even in your full-supplement-stack 3e games and such.

Exactly. Some people get it in their heads that alot of rules = MUST USE ALL THE TIME!!! When that is usually not the case at all.
I may not like Gurps much. But I at least have the common sense to see that Gurps is fairly rules intensive. But 90% of that is either very situational. Or focused into character generation. The game itself is fairly mild overall.
Even moreso for Rifts where 90% of the game is character stuff and once you are actually playing the game is very mild.
OD&D, AD&D and BXetc have lots of rules for things. But once playing those rules come into play how much?

There is a huge difference between there being a game like O/AD&D with rules to cover this and that little situation that might pop up, and a game that requires you to use every rule all the time. Aside from rules light games where the base mechanics are only the things in use all the time, how many rules heavy games need you to be referencing everything every round? Not even Role Master does that.

Some players or GMs want rules for the little things. Some dont. Some are fine with having lots of rules to call on IF they so feel like it. It is usefull for settling disputes in a fair way since its the designer settling the score. Others just adjudicate on the fly and move on. Others just really cannot do that. It is not their mindset.

And most assuredly some are going to be total dicks no matter if the rules are 1 page or 1000.

Gosh. Its allmost like every other aspect of gaming. Varies absolutely wildly from group to group.

So whats the solution?

None. Problem players/DMs are going to be problem players/DMs. Either resolve them or boot/leave them.

Play the game. Use what you need when you need it. Or dont. If you cant think of an on the spot rule then just roll vs a stat, percentile or best guess and ask online later.

That is my personal view. Which is surely at odds with someone elses out there.

Quote from: Old Geezer;748875To talk about ACTUAL cases again:

My hatred of "rules for everything" games is that inevitably they don't have rules for everything, and a significant proportion of referees who use them operate under "if the rules don't specifically allow it you can't do it."  I'm tired of getting "You can't do it because there's not a rule for it and I don't want to figure out how it works under the system."  Not an exaggeration.

42 years of experience has shown me that more rules stifle imagination, they do not enhance it.

And character generation optimization games need to die horribly in a fire screaming and writhing in agony.

Yeah. This is an old problem. And annoying. But it is a player/DM problem more often than the game. And it can go the other way too. "The rules dont state I cannot do this. Ergo that means I can do this."

I would more say that more rules dont stifle imagination. But rather they become the shield or crutch of people who may be lacking imagination in the first place. Or a built up defense reaction against players who were pulling the "rules dont state I cant" gag. For about the same reason you have a hate on for "The rules dont state you can"

So what do you do when you meet a DM who has the "rules dont state you can" mentality? Uplift them to sentience? Walk? Take over as DM? Axe murder the neighborhood?

Quote from: Omega;748910Exactly. Some people get it in their heads that alot of rules = MUST USE ALL THE TIME!!!

Agreed.  I'm not arguing against rules=bad.  I'm arguing against the rules=no arguments logic.

On the other hand, I find the point above very confusing in conjunction with:

Quote from: Omega;748910It is usefull for settling disputes in a fair way since its the designer settling the score.

This does not work with the above statement about not using rules all the time.  I cannot, in any conceivable way, imagine that "here's the ruling" will ever be less contentious than "here's the rule, but ignore it, here's the ruling."  It simply does not make any logical sense to me that somebody that cannot accept the judgement of a human referee without argument will not be significantly more argumentative if that human referee is supplanting a published rule with his/her judgement.

Quote from: Omega;748910And most assuredly some are going to be total dicks no matter if the rules are 1 page or 1000.

Even outside of that, roleplaying games are kind of predicated on the judgement of a human referee.  That's the strength of them - the ability of the human referee to handle situations and actions that the designer did not imagine.  If you can't accept that judgement, then it's kind of a mismatch between player attitude and game requirements.

Quote from: Omega;748910None. Problem players/DMs are going to be problem players/DMs. Either resolve them or boot/leave them.

Exactly.  Attempting to fix problem players with rules doesn't work.

Quote from: Omega;748915I would more say that more rules dont stifle imagination. But rather they become the shield or crutch of people who may be lacking imagination in the first place. Or a built up defense reaction against players who were pulling the "rules dont state I cant" gag. For about the same reason you have a hate on for "The rules dont state you can"

In practice, I see much more "playing the rules" with rules heavy games than with rules light games.  I can count the times that players did things not on their character sheets in 4e games I've run on one hand.  I can't even begin to count the things that players have done in Fate games I've run.

I don't think it *necessarily* leads to stifled creativity, but it sure seems to lead there in the general case.  Arguably it's more a matter of "playing the rules" rather than "playing the world", which is why I think that the games that have been most successful at coaxing out creativity are the ones that specifically encourage "playing the world" - older D&D, BRP, Fate, ApocWorld and its brethren, etc.

Quote from: Omega;748915So what do you do when you meet a DM who has the "rules dont state you can" mentality? Uplift them to sentience? Walk? Take over as DM? Axe murder the neighborhood?

Same thing I do with any other set of expectations - explain what I want, and if they're not willing to meet my needs, determine whether playing with them is a productive use of my time, with no hard feelings.

Quote from: Old Geezer;748875To talk about ACTUAL cases again:

My hatred of "rules for everything" games is that inevitably they don't have rules for everything, and a significant proportion of referees who use them operate under "if the rules don't specifically allow it you can't do it."  I'm tired of getting "You can't do it because there's not a rule for it and I don't want to figure out how it works under the system."  Not an exaggeration.

42 years of experience has shown me that more rules stifle imagination, they do not enhance it.

And character generation optimization games need to die horribly in a fire screaming and writhing in agony.

your anecdotal experience is clouding your mind to the reality.  Not doubting you that there are GMs like that out there, but there are certainly, without doubt, without question, times that more rules enhance imagination.  

I agre that there are many ways that the opposite is tue.  I've seen it a million times.  But there are times that structure pushes players to another level, especially if that structure is setting specific.

Generality can be as much an impediment as specificity.