TheRPGSite

After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

This isn't new in the least. "A Rule for Everything" was the Gygax way. There's nothing wrong with that aspiration, perhaps - it's not the way I want to play, or run games, but I know that many people who are quite pleased with the approach.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;746384After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

I think there have been people who prefer it that way since the very beginning.

It was very much a thing here in Brazil when I started gaming (circa 1992) and the dominant Kulturkampf in the local RPG community was D&D (mostly AD&D 2e and a bit of BECMI/RC) vs. GURPS.

For our group, it began with 3rd edition.  Earlier editions were run "seat of the pants".  Not so with us for 3rd and 4th.

The issue with rules for everything isn't bad, if it's designed for something that actually matters (or can optionally work well) for a game.

It depends on the intent of the design. What is horrible when people mistake rules for the actual game itself. That's the problem with new gamers when they glom onto a rules-heavy game as their first shooting-match that "mentality" as you coin it, becomes how they approach (and subsequently judge) other games.

When you have fewer rules and the GM has come to understand that part of the job of GMing is making the on-the-fly call - and get good at it, players will suddenly understand the rules, no matter how numerous, are only there to help guide a game, not necessarily define how it is to be enjoyed.

I've seen the reliance on GM rulings attributed to the wargaming culture of referee adjudication, with the appeal of comprehensive, universal mechanics gaining strength as non-wargamers joined the hobby.

Even though the earliest such games, like Traveller and Runequest, were designed by people with a wargaming background.

Definitely not new (see the letters section of early Dragon magazine issues), although I think it only came to be dominant some time after D&D 3.0 launched. I think the suggestion that Gygax wanted a rule for everything is disingenuous, and I'm no Gygax-licker.

Quote from: The Butcher;746390I've seen the reliance on GM rulings attributed to the wargaming culture of referee adjudication, with the appeal of comprehensive, universal mechanics gaining strength as non-wargamers joined the hobby.

Even though the earliest such games, like Traveller and Runequest, were designed by people with a wargaming background.

Traveller didn't have "comprehensive, universal mechanics" for close to a decade - the universal task profile rules appeared in a Challenge 29 article by Joe Fugate (of DGP fame) in 1987.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746392Traveller didn't have "comprehensive, universal mechanics" for close to a decade - the universal task profile rules appeared in a Challenge 29 article by Joe Fugate (of DGP fame) in 1987.

I stand corrected. :hatsoff:

When I grew up, we also played wargames and some of those games had exhaustive rules as part of the neverending quest for better simulation aka so called realism.

Of course, a lot of those games weren't really that good as games. They were interesting though. Anyhow, I think that want has always been there.

Today, I'm quite happy with adaptable rules and judicious DM fiat ... especially mine.  It's good to have mechanics to create the game reality, but I think too many rules just get in the way as they create more work than is needed. I don't need a running broadjump table or running broadjump skill ranks for example. Nor do I need ice skating or skiing rules or parachuting rules. And so on. Just some sort of adaptable maneuver process or mechanic.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;746384After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

Its been around a long time. It is one of the reasons AD&D was published.

Some players and DMs want official rules rather than home-brew. Either because they dont have the mindset for it, or because if its official then a belligerant player cannot argue it.

Also some players seemed to want more rules as a method of depowering DM choice and arbitration.

Unfortunately some players and GMs have a "If it is written it MUST be used!" mentality that can go a bit overboard.

On top of all that some players simply cannot imagine roleplaying something without a rule for it, whereas others will try to do ANYTHING the rules do not expressly state they cannot do.

Quote"The rules say you can perform Deathblow when you make an attack that kills the monster in one hit. BUT the rules do NOT say I or friends cannot wack-wack-wack-wack on the monster and then that last hit that kills triggers Deathblow."

And round and round it goes.

Quote from: Omega;746399It is one of the reasons AD&D was published.

The core books for AD&D were published between 1977 and 1979; the first formal attempt at something resembling a skill system and 'universal' roll-under-attribute rules didn't appear until Oriental Adventures in 1985.

It seems to me that a "Rule for Everything" is useful for convention play, where you don't already know the players at your table. Me and my buddies might have an understanding on how we manage on-the-fly rulings, but at the con, to avoid arguments, it's handy to direct the disagreeing player to pg 75 or whatever.

I recall a bunch of paragraphs in the AD&D DMG beginning with "It is of the utmost importance..." A few of these paragraphs are describing rules that I consider optional at home.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746402The core books for AD&D were published between 1977 and 1979; the first formal attempt at something resembling a skill system and 'universal' roll-under-attribute rules didn't appear until Oriental Adventures in 1985.

Meant the rule for everything part.

Quote from: Omega;746408Meant the rule for everything part.

Okay, please quote the rules for (1) swimming and (2) bribing a guard from the three core 1e AD&D books.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746409Okay, please quote the rules for (1) swimming and (2) bribing a guard from the three core 1e AD&D books.

Um... Did you read the OP or what I responded to? "Rules for everything" MENTALITY? Gygax himself had stated that AD&D and UA came about in part from the frequent letters for more rules that surprised them. And gathering stuff from Dragon.

Quote from: Panjumanju;746385This isn't new in the least. "A Rule for Everything" was the Gygax way.

Not until the late 70s with AD&D.

"We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you."

Dungeons and Dragons, Vol. 3, "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," p. 36 (TSR, 1974)

The "Rule For Everything" came from D&D tournament play.  Tournaments had prizes, and quickly got too big for one referee.  The more referees, the more the rules need to be exactly nailed down.

I will also note that I thought the idea of a "D&D Tournament" was stupid the first time I heard it, and I still think it's stupid today.  But the wargames at GenCon had prizes, and when non-wargamers started showing up at GenCon they wanted prizes too.

The dichotomy of 'adjudicate vs rule' is ancient, and it corrolates (or should) with the scope and complexity of the game one wants to play.

You'll note from the various OD&D to AD&D a move towards Rule vs Adjudication.  And the term 'Advanced' added weight to the idea that more rules was more advanced design, when in fact few people realized the resultant reduction in flexibility and assumed setting scope.  Not saying this is bad, just somehting that happened.

But the bigger the scope of the game, no matter the system, and the closer to a reality it attempts to model, the more adjudication has to be assumed.

Quote from: OmegaSome players and DMs want official rules rather than home-brew. Either because they dont have the mindset for it, or because if its official then a belligerant player cannot argue it.

Also some players seemed to want more rules as a method of depowering DM choice and arbitration.

I think this is the essence of it.  Rules-for-everything systems can act to mitigate DM/player tensions - either players who are dissatisfied with what they perceive as bad DM rulings, or DMs who can point to the rules as a source of authority in order to keep what they perceive as unrealistic player expectations in check.  In groups where neither of these things is a problem, rules-for-everything aren't as necessary.

That said, just because they're not necessary doesn't mean they're actively bad.  That depends much more on the substance of the rules in question.  In general I think rules-for-everything systems are a bit better for simulationist, immersionist play-styles that're about fostering a sense of verisimilitude, whereas more ad-hoc systems are a bit better at gonzo, wild adventure and a "cinematic" play style - although I don't think either style is precluded by the opposite system.

Yeah, It's been around a long time. I first learned to play D&D back in 1980. My friends and I were always coming up with "What if..." situations and were hungry for more rules and definitions. I spent plenty of money on rulebooks, Dragon Magazine, modules, etc. often in the quest for more rules and a deeper understanding of the game.

That's partly why I fell in love with Hero System when I learned about and bought it. Suddenly game rules were more streamlined and made logical sense. Not just one genre either but across any and all genres. (Try mixing 1980's AD&D, Gamma World and Star Frontiers sometime and you'll see what I mean.) Maybe it wasn't perfect, but compared to AD&D Hero really did offer "A Rule for Everything" in a neat, simple, consistent package.

Maybe Hero has been surpassed in simplicity and consistency since then. I dunno. But the thirst for "A Rule for Everything" goes on.

My first RPG was Marvel Superheroes, which I consider a rules light system. I only played a few games of AD&D in 1985. Until the 90s, I was playing Marvel, MERP, WEG Star Wars, and Robotech/TMNT. From 90 to the release of D&D3.0, I played GURPS almost exclusively.

Maybe it was because of the people I played with, that I never really noticed the "Rule for Everything" mentality. Even after the switch to D&D3.x I didn't really notice it. Honestly, for a long time I didn't have much contact outside my gaming group until really getting active on gaming forums around 2004. And still, I didn't really notice the change until 2008 with the 4e. Maybe it has a lot to do with how vocal the 4e fan were/are.

Interesting to know that its not a new thing. I'd never understood the whole Tournament play thing. Just curious, if it started (roughly) with tournament play, was it perpetuated by RPGA and then later Delve/Encounters? Has it become a bigger thing now as WoTC seems to be trying to unify the gaming experience? Where it is the same across all games?



I'm probably not explaining myself well... Sorry.

Back in the Wayback I went on a merry chase after 'realism'. Not so much more rules... but detailed rules seemed necessary to 'get it right'. I rebelled against the 'nonsense' of D&D and jumped over to Runequest... and pretty soon Chivalry & Sorcery was looking like the next level closer.
Eventually I ended up at Phoenix Command.

Nowadays I'm much more relaxed and the abstractions of D&D that used to bug the crap out of me are no big dead and I generally prefer 'lite' systems (though I still think GURPS is pretty neat).

Quote from: The Butcher;746390I've seen the reliance on GM rulings attributed to the wargaming culture of referee adjudication, with the appeal of comprehensive, universal mechanics gaining strength as non-wargamers joined the hobby.

I don't think you can assume wargames are rules-light in a world where somebody wrote Advanced Squad Leader.

I think it's more simply that if a GM makes enough rulings on the same situation, then this ruling becomes a house rule. If that GM goes on to write an rpg, that house rule becomes a system rule. And when getting that detailed for stuff that's come up, the GM-turned-writer gets just as detailed with stuff that's never come up. Just to be consistent, you know?

Enough years of ad hoc stuff means when you come to write a game, it's 576 pages and even then people don't feel it's complete and write rules for welding (https://sites.google.com/site/nymdoksgurpsaddons/Home/gurps-welding).

I'm not sure 'rule for everything' has to lead to complexity. The Siege Engine in C&C effectively presents a rule for everything, and it is one of the simpler versions of D&D because there is a central mechanic that translates across all sorts of situations - combat, saving throws, jumping, talking in a high squeaky voice, whatever. I'm sure there are other (perhaps better) examples. And the guidelines for using it in practice make it pretty clear how it works for various situations, but only takes a few pages to explain.

Bah. D&D's nothing.

For some reason Kult, a super angsty and atmospheric  horror game about purgatory and the death of God, needs to have special rules for shit like air combat and the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning. Relevant much?

I think from the very beginning. All the questions / clarifications published in the newsletters and magazines over the years from players and GMs probably provided enough evidence that some customers wanted more. I know I did...until Unearthed Arcana came out.

From the '70s there were games written in reaction to D&D's lack of rules, which attempted to have a rule for everything approach. Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery are two that come to mind.

With D&D there's not a lot of sign of this until the '80s, with stuff like the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide.

Quote from: S'mon;746516From the '70s there were games written in reaction to D&D's lack of rules, which attempted to have a rule for everything approach. Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery are two that come to mind.

The first edition of Runequest doesn't seem that rules heavy at 112 pages; very granular though with hit locations, armor damage, etc.

C&S (at least the big box set I have) seems just to pile it all on.

The Endless Debate

Directly connected to the 'rule for everything' mentality is the issue of player impact on the resolution of the game.

Along with expanding the rules to cover more things in a game, there comes comes a tendency to shrink the pool of possibilities to mesh more closely to what the rules cover. At its worst, this tendency leads to push button play.

Tabletop is unique because you can do anything in the game that can be imagined. There is no programmed code boundary to worry about. It is an ideal platform to highlight individual player imagination and creativity. If the entire game is codified into pre-defined moves then the impact of the player is washed away in favor of mechanical programming.

I can play videogames if push button play is what I wanted and would have graphics and all the special effects to go with it. The interaction with other people in an imaginative limitless medium is the draw of playing tabletop.

A character is a game component. It cannot enjoy success, feel the heartbreak of failure, or enjoy the overall experience of playing the game, thus its position during play is subordinate to that of the player.

The importance of character over player in tabletop game design is bass ackwards. Avatar based design is more appropriate to other mediums such as MMOs. As far as gameplay is concerned, when that WOW account gets logged on and a character enters play, the experience in the game is the same no matter what putz is sitting at the keyboard. The limitations of the medium make this a neccessity. Why would we want such a mediocre experience in a medium without such limitations?

Quote from: Lynn;746520The first edition of Runequest doesn't seem that rules heavy at 112 pages; very granular though with hit locations, armor damage, etc.

But Runequest did have a skill for everything, from spotting to oratory. It is what I call a comprehensive skill system, where every action has a skill associated with it. A comprehensive skill list can have 10 skills or 100 depending on how broad the skills are.

The comparison of Runequest and Chivalry&Sorcery provides some insight into another side of this whole issue: whatever your intention might be, there are better and worse ways to execute it. Design philosophy is one thing; actual design is another.

Runequest was at least partly inspired by 'a rule for everything' mentality and ended up being short, easy to understand, comprehensive and tight as a drum. It is probably the best 100-odd pages of game design you will ever see (and it would have been 50 pages if they'd used the tiny fonts of a lot of modern books). Chivalry&Sorcery was aiming at a similar sort of target but, while it has tons of character and is fun, the rules are bloated, hard to understand, and fill hundreds of pages (thousands if they had printed it in a font size readable by human eyes). One of these sets of rules turned into the foundation of a half dozen very successful games that are still going strong 35 years later, with little change in the core mechanics. The other went through several dramatic revisions, never really found an audience and is currently out of print. Design philosophy can be interesting to debate, but it's design execution that really counts.

Quote from: Simlasa;746465and pretty soon Chivalry & Sorcery was looking like the next level closer.
Eventually I ended up at Phoenix Command.

The first time I saw these rulesets, I thought it looked like they were written by rocket scientists.

Phoenix Command was. Barry Nakazono was a propulsion engineer for NASA.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;746474I don't think you can assume wargames are rules-light in a world where somebody wrote Advanced Squad Leader.

Which is why I didn't.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;746474I don't think you can assume wargames are rules-light in a world where somebody wrote Advanced Squad Leader.

No, but you also can't assume that wargames are all rule-heavy either.

Until the late 80s or so, most miniatures wargames were indeed rules-light and assumed the presence of a referee.

Many of them still are, and do.

Hexmap-and-chit boardgames have always been more rules heavy, in part precisely because they assume no referee.

Quote from: ExploderwizardAlong with expanding the rules to cover more things in a game, there comes comes a tendency to shrink the pool of possibilities to mesh more closely to what the rules cover. At its worst, this tendency leads to push button play.

This can be true, but a good DM can definitely avert this tendency towards push-button play.  I run games with quite a lot of rules, but my fundamental position has always been "tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you what to roll."  The presence of written rules for a lot of things doesn't preclude that attitude or player creativity, if the DM is presenting the rules properly; in fact, sometimes I think it can do the opposite.  

Like, for example, in a game with rules for swimming, if a character's sheet identifies them as a really good swimmer, the player might be more inclined to try whacky and inventive things that involve water because they can trust that the rules will be "on their side" - whereas in a game without any rules for swimming, a player might be a bit more cautious and hesitant because they're less sure of their character's capability, how difficult the current is to overcome, how the DM is going to make an ad-hoc ruling, etc.

If the DM is lazy, though, I totally agree that rules-heavy systems can degenerate into the kind of automated play you're describing.

Personally I prefer a full page table for everything to a rule for everything.  Not a universal table but a full page dedicated to a breakdown of modifiers and degrees of success and advantage carried forward.

Rolemaster Standard System for the win!

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;746509Bah. D&D's nothing.

For some reason Kult, a super angsty and atmospheric  horror game about purgatory and the death of God, needs to have special rules for shit like air combat and the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning. Relevant much?

Absolutely, killing monsters by leaving the door to the basement open and the car running is right up my alley and if C'thulhu is coming out of the ocean I mean to fill him full of Harpoon missiles before he reaches shore.  But then I always did like Dark Conspiracy.

Horror is, of course, what happens when those attempts go horribly wrong.  You think C'thulhu exploding in a series of devastating blasts isn't horrifiying?  But then you realize you're in a confined space travelling at mach 2 and there's this portal behind him and there's colors there like none you've ever seen and...and this piping music, wild and sweet, calling you home and the guy at HQ is shouting "Can you hear me Major Tom?" at the top of his lungs as the prophet of the Elder Gods steps ashore out of fire and smoke and mist and the end of the world carries on without you.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;746567But Runequest did have a skill for everything, from spotting to oratory. It is what I call a comprehensive skill system, where every action has a skill associated with it. A comprehensive skill list can have 10 skills or 100 depending on how broad the skills are.

You are right - it just didn't seem to me to be grafted onto something else that was working fine.

Quote from: Omega;746399Some players and DMs want official rules rather than home-brew. Either because they dont have the mindset for it, or because if its official then a belligerant player cannot argue it.

Extensive "rules for everything" will not stop belligerent players and DMs from being complete asshats.

At minimum, "rules for everything" isn't much more than an easy ammunition for such belligerents.

Quote from: ggroy;746619Extensive "rules for everything" will not stop belligerent players and DMs from being complete asshats.

At minimum, "rules for everything" isn't much more than an easy ammunition for such belligerents.

Yep.  Rules won't fix asshole.

Quote from: Steerpike;746600This can be true, but a good DM can definitely avert this tendency towards push-button play.  I run games with quite a lot of rules, but my fundamental position has always been "tell me what you want to do, I'll tell you what to roll."  The presence of written rules for a lot of things doesn't preclude that attitude or player creativity, if the DM is presenting the rules properly; in fact, sometimes I think it can do the opposite.  

Like, for example, in a game with rules for swimming, if a character's sheet identifies them as a really good swimmer, the player might be more inclined to try whacky and inventive things that involve water because they can trust that the rules will be "on their side" - whereas in a game without any rules for swimming, a player might be a bit more cautious and hesitant because they're less sure of their character's capability, how difficult the current is to overcome, how the DM is going to make an ad-hoc ruling, etc.

If the DM is lazy, though, I totally agree that rules-heavy systems can degenerate into the kind of automated play you're describing.

Good Post.  You really can boil it down to - a Great GM will run a Great game, no matter what the rules are, a suckass GM is going to suck no matter what the rules are, but if the ruleset is heavy enough, the players can play without him if they need to.

As more and more of Mearls crap from the last ten years floats up into threads here, the more evident it is that Mearls design philosophy is for an RPG to function regardless of who sits at the table, the rules will carry a suckass GM and clueless players to a set result.

That's even worse than computer games and MMOs.  Those do require skill, even if that skill is twitch, social climbing or logistics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;746630As more and more of Mearls crap from the last ten years floats up into threads here, the more evident it is that Mearls design philosophy is for an RPG to function regardless of who sits at the table, the rules will carry a suckass GM and clueless players to a set result.

This seems to have been the WoTC design philosophy, almost a mantra. I think their massive-rules approach was intended to 'tame the GM' but completely failed at this with 3e; I can kinda see that they had some success that way with pre-Essentials 4e combat (not non-combat), but at a heavy cost. But Mearls was in charge of Essentials which reduced the emphasis on this approach, and 5e seems to be moving away from it too.

Quote from: S'mon;746710But Mearls was in charge of Essentials which reduced the emphasis on this approach, and 5e seems to be moving away from it too.

Hey Pundit here's where you come in and mention that years of reading your blog has obviously done Mike some good. :pundit:

or more likely, Mearls has finally convinced WotC to let him follow his deeper motivation, which as Windjammer pointed out, is to please everyone simultaneously.

Which, if he can pull it off, is fine.  I don't give a shit if you can storygame to your heart's content with the rules for 5e.   All that I give a shit about is that the system isn't actively hostile to those who actually want to roleplay with the damn thing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746430The "Rule For Everything" came from D&D tournament play.  Tournaments had prizes, and quickly got too big for one referee.  The more referees, the more the rules need to be exactly nailed down.

I will also note that I thought the idea of a "D&D Tournament" was stupid the first time I heard it, and I still think it's stupid today.  But the wargames at GenCon had prizes, and when non-wargamers started showing up at GenCon they wanted prizes too.

That does make a screwed up sort of sense. and the tournament modules were a good solution. A con event that was the same no matter where. Like playing any module at a convention really. Except these you could not buy initially?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;746509Bah. D&D's nothing.

For some reason Kult, a super angsty and atmospheric  horror game about purgatory and the death of God, needs to have special rules for shit like air combat and the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning. Relevant much?

Depends on how often you were locked in a garage with the car engine left running? What about being locked in the garage with the engine running while being attacked by vampire bats? Did this happen often in Kult?

Quote from: ggroy;746619Extensive "rules for everything" will not stop belligerent players and DMs from being complete asshats.

At minimum, "rules for everything" isn't much more than an easy ammunition for such belligerents.

True, a problem player/DM who is JUST a problem player/DM and not a problem over rules interpretation or improvisation is still going to be a problem player/DM no matter how light or heavy the rules are.

Talk with em and failing that. Boot em/Find a new group.

I understand the debate about styles of play, but I don't think you can easily map it onto specific written rules of specific games. The classic examples of 'free form' games generally have ornate rules systems (many of which are traditionally ignored), and the 'rule for everything' games I know of feel just as loosy-goosy as any other game when I've played them at the table. I'm sure there are communities of gamers who are much more free form about their rules use than others, but I think this cultural divide would exist if there were only one game ever published. Actually, my group has always called all games 'D&D'. As in, 'we're playing D&D saturday night, right? What will it be?'; 'Oh, how about Pendragon?'. I own a million game books because I enjoy the collector element of the hobby and it is often fun to see what new people put into their versions of D&D. But they all end up seeming like the same game to me, and they end up being played in the same way at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;746770Hey Pundit here's where you come in and mention that years of reading your blog has obviously done Mike some good. :pundit:

Well, it did him good enough to hire me as a Consultant, for starters.

RPGPundit

Quote from: David Johansen;746603Absolutely, killing monsters by leaving the door to the basement open and the car running is right up my alley and if C'thulhu is coming out of the ocean I mean to fill him full of Harpoon missiles before he reaches shore.  But then I always did like Dark Conspiracy.

Yeah... but that would require specific rules for missiles/carbon-monoxide against fallen angels and Cthulhu-monsters... and there aren't any. Just against humans... Rules. For. Everything. Please.

And no, I don't think people-getting-caught-in-garages-with-running-cars was a big thing in Kult. Or any other rpg.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;748143Yeah... but that would require specific rules for missiles/carbon-monoxide against fallen angels and Cthulhu-monsters... and there aren't any. Just against humans... Rules. For. Everything. Please.

And no, I don't think people-getting-caught-in-garages-with-running-cars was a big thing in Kult. Or any other rpg.

I have seen at least two RPGs with rules for CO2 poisoning in them. Cant remember the names though as its been a while. Id be surprised if Gurps doesnt have a rule in there somewhere.

The main question is. Does it fit the setting and gameplay? In say Call of Cthulhu or a detective themed game I could see such rules being usefull. Also any pulp or superhero themed games.

Quote from: Omega;748230The main question is. Does it fit the setting and gameplay? In say Call of Cthulhu or a detective themed game I could see such rules being usefull. Also any pulp or superhero themed games.

Sure, but I still find it hard to imagine a game where carbon monoxide poisoning happens often enough to call for a special rule in the book - but maybe that's just me. But yeah, GURPS probably has it :)

I'd imagine, that most gm's could make up some sort of ruling on the fly should it pop up in a game of Call/Unknown Armies/OtE/whatnot. Actually, I'm pretty sure that would, to me, be preferable to stopping the game for a "wait... I know that there's a rule for this somewhere in the book.. let me just find it" break.

But I agree that it's all about context and fitting. That's why air combat rules in Robotech is fine by me, but seems silly in Kult.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;748269Sure, but I still find it hard to imagine a game where carbon monoxide poisoning happens often enough to call for a special rule in the book - but maybe that's just me. But yeah, GURPS probably has it :)

On my dads side of the family were extensive coal miners. I am surprised that there arent more rules in D&D for dungeon and especially mine works.

Sure, if its inhabited and active then its likely well ventilated. But running into areas of bad air in more abandoned mines and dungeons could be a problem. We just used the poison gas rules. Though some of the bad air effects are slower I am told.

I think Dungeoneers Survival Guide has some rules for that. But dont have the book handy.

At one point I was fiddling with writing a Transformers / Demonic invasion set up for Clash's wild Blue rpg where air to air combat would be a major aspect of the game.  The living machines ideas filtered down into Incandescent's White Hot Future and the Shard could be considered demonic though it's simply very high technology.  

In horror games you tend to fight humans and try to work around cosmic entities and fallen angels.  Sure PCs will try crazy schemes but most of the really nasty stuff is pretty immune to petty metabolic hazards.  Which is why GURPS High Tech has rules for shooting propane tanks.

I'm sure GURPS does cover suffocation and poison but I'm not sure which one CO is under.

I've argued for years that all tabletop role-playing games have the same number of rules. Some publish them in books and sell them to the public. And some give players  a framework of rules and expect them to fill in the gaps for the rules that were not published in the game itself. But we all use the same number of rules. I prefer the former to the latter. I want as many rules as reasonably possible to be published and accessible to everyone at the table to use as reference. I think it avoids more problems that way. The latter model expects the GM to adjudicate every 'missing' rule during play. Which leads to inconsistency and endless arguments. Whether we play HERO or Fudge I think we all play with the same number of rules.

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

The mantra of the rules-for-everything gamer: everyone at the table is a selfish child waiting to act out.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;748684The mantra of the rules-for-everything gamer: everyone at the table is a selfish child waiting to act out.

Agreed.

Video games are restricted by what the programming allows you to do.
Board games tend to have clear cut rules with optimal strategies.

D&D allows you to do anything.
In my experience, over codification of rules just gets you a pen & paper video game, or a board game.

Human adjudication, on the fly, by a DM seems to be what grants D&D it's unique strength.

I have seen many more arguments over rules obsession than over 'missing' rules.

Who has experienced the reverse?

Quote from: Bill;748757I have seen many more arguments over rules obsession than over 'missing' rules.

Who has experienced the reverse?

What do you mean by "missing"? As in forgetting?


I forget rules all the time... One of the biggest problems I had in running my 4e game was I couldn't keep track of all the rules... I  think that is one of my biggest draws to older editions is that there are so few rules, and the rules are so easy that if I forget one, I can just ask for an ability check or a save of some kind.

I'm pretty sure that when he says "missing" he means "adjudication because no rule exists".

Quote from: Bobloblah;748799I'm pretty sure that when he says "missing" he means "adjudication because no rule exists".

Yes, that's what I meant.

Although I am a huge supporter of rules light with gm adjudication, I also appreciate a clean non intrusive set of mechanics.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;748684The mantra of the rules-for-everything gamer: everyone at the table is a selfish child waiting to act out.

Yes.

As Bill Hoyt said on the way back from GaryCon this year, "Don't game with psychopaths."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;748684The mantra of the rules-for-everything gamer: everyone at the table is a selfish child waiting to act out.

This is really quite disingenuous.

I prefer a rules-heavy game. I prefer this not because I think everyone at the table will flip the fuck out the moment a situation comes up that isn't covered by the rules; I prefer it because I don't want to have to deal with the game coming to a screeching halt when something that isn't covered comes up.

As a GM, I have more important things to worry about than figuring out rules on the fly. I want a system that works and covers 90% of situations that will likely come up in the game, and preferably have what rules do exist be easily extensible to situations not directly covered. The time I have to spend dicking with the rules to make them cover a new situation is time not spent actually playing the game.

I prefer having a solid set of rules because then the players will know what to expect when a given situation comes up. They don't have to rely on my imperfect ability to judge situations, or my potentially-inconsistent rulings. Rules provide the framework for a stable world in the fiction; they make sure that I don't set something at DC 10 one night and then at DC 20 the next, because it's in the damn rules. I don't have to worry about determining the game mechanics of the obstacles I put in the party's path, because most of those rules should already be covered by the game.

I have better things to do with my imagination than come up with numbers for funny-shaped dice to roll over or under. That's why we use these games made by other people in the first place.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828I prefer a rules-heavy game. [...] I prefer it because I don't want to have to deal with the game coming to a screeching halt when something that isn't covered comes up.

Interesting.

I've been in more gaming situations where the game comes to a screeching halt because the GM (and often the players) are scanning through core books of the rules-heavy game to find the perfect rules-resolution to a problem. And, been in many sessions where adjudicated decisions (situations not covered by the rules) haven't led to any delay in game-play because the GM has been able to quickly and logically been able to resolve it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;748684The mantra of the rules-for-everything gamer: everyone at the table is a selfish child waiting to act out.

Hmm.
I disagree.  I don't assume everyone who prefers rules-lite is less intelligent, just because the rules are easier to understand.

I find there are good games in both styles, and those in between.  And they are better suited to different sorts of games.  My Mantra for my rules-heavy games (and few think they have a rule for everything, they just have more situations mapped and covered by the rules, no one has every situation covered in an RPG.) is to create more rules to specifically convey the feel of the setting.  This is sometimes at the cost of speed in chargen or even the game sometimes.  but the benefit on the other side is a game experience more specific to the setting.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828This is really quite disingenuous.

I prefer a rules-heavy game. I prefer this not because I think everyone at the table will flip the fuck out the moment a situation comes up that isn't covered by the rules; I prefer it because I don't want to have to deal with the game coming to a screeching halt when something that isn't covered comes up.

That's disingenuous.  Practically, here's how I see it work.  "I want to do xyz!"  "Okay, what are you trying to accomplish by that?"  "Abc!"  "Cool, gimme a roll at .  If you succeed, .  If you fail, ."

That's hardly screeching to a halt.

OTOH, I *have* seen games "screech to a halt" as someone tries to look up the rule to cover some bizarre edge case.

For some reason, games where I never have to open a book to look up a rule go *much, much* faster than games where I do.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828As a GM, I have more important things to worry about than figuring out rules on the fly. I want a system that works and covers 90% of situations that will likely come up in the game, and preferably have what rules do exist be easily extensible to situations not directly covered. The time I have to spend dicking with the rules to make them cover a new situation is time not spent actually playing the game.

Well, they're rulings, not rules, so you don't have to come up with "new rules" on the fly.  It's "this is how this will work in this situation."

As far as basic, solid rules, I think that "roll over this number to get what you want, or you don't get what you want and maybe something bad happens as a result" is pretty rock-solid.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828I prefer having a solid set of rules because then the players will know what to expect when a given situation comes up.

My players usually just assume that what comes up will make sense.  I also listen to reason.

"Okay, if you fall, you're going to take x damage."
"Dude, you said it's a ten-foot wall.  People jump down from that height all the time.  It's not even dangerous, unless you twist something weird."
"Yeah, okay, if you fail, you're on your butt."

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828They don't have to rely on my imperfect ability to judge situations

No, they have to rely on the imperfect ability of the designer to predict every facet of what might be in the situation.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828or my potentially-inconsistent rulings. Rules provide the framework for a stable world in the fiction; they make sure that I don't set something at DC 10 one night and then at DC 20 the next, because it's in the damn rules.

A) It's probably not the same situation, so the exact same DC may not be appropriate.
B) If so, your players remind you, you go "oh, yeah, shit, you're right" or "here's why it's higher now" and get on with the damn game.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828I don't have to worry about determining the game mechanics of the obstacles I put in the party's path, because most of those rules should already be covered by the game.

No, you just have to take time to look up those rules.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828I have better things to do with my imagination than come up with numbers for funny-shaped dice to roll over or under. That's why we use these games made by other people in the first place.

I have better things to do with my time than look up rules for every situation.  I may be biased since I play Fate, where the difficulties are described in regular terms ("Mediocre", "Average", "Fair", "Good", "Great"), but it really isn't any cognitive load to figure that out.  I'll admit in 3.x where skills vary *so dramatically* it may be a bit bigger of an issue.

Consistency can be good - but it often comes with an associated price of having to look things up.  I've never found it to be slower than just "make up a damn number and get on with it".  The issue that arises from "make up a damn number" is if people can't accept the judgement of another human being.

It's not a matter of table-flipping rage.  It's a matter of having to argue when something isn't the way you think it should be.  And my experience is that those people don't get "fixed" by having rules - they just find other things to argue about.  Instead of "OMG, how could you set that lock to difficulty ", it becomes "OMG, there's no way orcs could have a masterwork lock".  This is from experience - the *same people* that argue with how you set difficulties in low-crunch games are the *same people* that argue with which rules should apply or what enemies should have, etc. in high crunch games.

A rules-heavy game doesn't necessarily imply that it's built 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.

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.

Totally.  Some people *really really* like the character optimization game, and that's not something you typically get from a rules light game.  Some of the wackiness that can result from random charts is gone if you get rid of those charts.  Those are great reasons to like high-crunch games.

I just don't find the "consistency" argument very compelling, assuming you have mature players/refs.  And I really find the "speed of play" argument to be utterly counter to my experiences.

Quote from: K Peterson;748829I've been in more gaming situations where the game comes to a screeching halt because the GM (and often the players) are scanning through core books of the rules-heavy game to find the perfect rules-resolution to a problem.

I have had quite a lot of free-time on my hands in the past, and spent a lot of that reading rules for the games I play. The result is that even if I don't know a rule off-hand, I know precisely where to find it.

That, and using online SRDs and such for d20 and Pathfinder has sped things up considerably.

Obviously this is experiential and anecdotal. *shrug*

Quote from: robiswrong;748833That's disingenuous.  Practically, here's how I see it work.  "I want to do xyz!"  "Okay, what are you trying to accomplish by that?"  "Abc!"  "Cool, gimme a roll at .  If you succeed, .  If you fail, ."

Your example here is one that is at most a moderately-complex action that is being reduced to the core task resolution mechanic of the system in question.

Obviously such actions fall under the purview of what I meant by extensible rules that cover the 10% the rules shouldn't be tasked with handling.

There are a lot of situations the rules in 3.5 don't cover, and don't even begin to cover, that require more significant adjudication.

QuoteWell, they're rulings, not rules, so you don't have to come up with "new rules" on the fly.  It's "this is how this will work in this situation."

Pedantry really irks me.

QuoteMy players usually just assume that what comes up will make sense.  I also listen to reason.

"Okay, if you fall, you're going to take x damage."
"Dude, you said it's a ten-foot wall.  People jump down from that height all the time.  It's not even dangerous, unless you twist something weird."
"Yeah, okay, if you fail, you're on your butt."

This scenario could just as easily be covered by the rules as written. It comes up often enough; why is it not? Why do we even have to spend the time to have the conversation?

If the rule exists, you as a player can look them up. That is time you are spending to do so.

If the rule does not, you as a player and the DM need to have a discussion. That is time two people are spending, and the game necessarily stops.

Whereas if you look up the rules, the game does not necessarily stop.

QuoteNo, they have to rely on the imperfect ability of the designer to predict every facet of what might be in the situation.

Nothing is going to be perfect. I would rather have a set of rules at hand to handle common situations and with extensible rules that are sensible that I can readily extend to situations not covered, than have to come up with everything on the fly when I'm already tasked with coming up with story, NPCs, places, etc.

QuoteA) It's probably not the same situation, so the exact same DC may not be appropriate.

Given, but that's not what I was trying to get at with the example.

QuoteB) If so, your players remind you, you go "oh, yeah, shit, you're right" or "here's why it's higher now" and get on with the damn game.

And if there were actual rules being consulted we wouldn't have the fucking conversation in the first place. Time is being eaten because I am not guaranteed to be consistent. The rules are guaranteed to be consistent because they are written.

QuoteNo, you just have to take time to look up those rules.

Which doesn't have to eat time at the table, so more time for gaming.

QuoteConsistency can be good - but it often comes with an associated price of having to look things up.

If consistency is not important to you, then we're not going to agree. Consistency is of high importance to me.

If you think it's not worth the potential look-up times, then fine; but for me, it is.

Quote from: robiswrong;748837I just don't find the "consistency" argument very compelling, assuming you have mature players/refs.

Oh piss the fuck off.

I want consistency because it's an element I find important in the games I play. Consistency helps me to immerse in the game and think like my character. It has fucking nothing to do with "maturity" or whatever else you fucking think it does, so get off your high horse.

Personally, I'm a fan of rules light to medium games that have strong core mechanics that are easy to adapt to almost any situation.

Fate Core is a good example.

Specific rules for everything just leaves me either making rulings on the fly anyway or looking up rules every time something comes up that isn't common because hell if I can remember every rule in GURPS.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748843Pedantry really irks me.

It's not pedantry.  There's a significant difference between "Okay, here's how we're going to handle this specific situation this time" (a ruling) and "Okay, here's how we're going to handle an entire class of situations going forward" (a rule).

Since rules are general, they are much harder to get right, and take much longer to write.  A ruling is inherently throw-away.  Similar rulings over a period of time may get generalized and turned into a rule, but the difference between a "rule" and a "ruling" is significant, as the process for handling it is entirely different.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828Whereas if you look up the rules, the game does not necessarily stop.

The best I've seen is that the asynchronous lookup only occurs *after* some amount of argument.  I've *never* seen it just start that way.

Most rulings (again, assuming you're playing with people that won't argue every little thing) are done instantaneously.  Most "debates" are done in under a minute.

Now, granted, this type of structure probably wouldn't work well in a crunch-heavy game like D&D 3.x.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828And if there were actual rules being consulted we wouldn't have the fucking conversation in the first place. Time is being eaten because I am not guaranteed to be consistent. The rules are guaranteed to be consistent because they are written.

No, you'd just eat the time looking up the rules.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that arguments don't take up time.  The effectiveness of the rulings approach is *entirely dependent* on how argumentative your players/GMs are.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828Which doesn't have to eat time at the table, so more time for gaming.

Again, I've never seen looking up rules *not* take up less time.  You keep saying it doesn't, but if someone's turn relies on a rule, how do you resolve it without taking up table time?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828If consistency is not important to you, then we're not going to agree. Consistency is of high importance to me.

It's not binary - it's about degree of consistency.  It's also much easier in some games that have compressed difficulty scales, as I've mentioned.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828If you think it's not worth the potential look-up times, then fine; but for me, it is.

Cool.  I'm an adult with a family, I can't really afford eight+ hour sessions any more.  My goal is to get in the maximum fun possible in a four hour session.

I also play with people that don't tend to be argumentative, and I personally avoid arguing about minor things.  That all works together well for me.

If I had many hours to play, and was playing with more argumentative people, I may look at it differently.

By the way, it's worth pointing out that it's not disingenuous for people to say "don't play with argumentative people" when 95% or your argument for rules heavy games isn't the positive things they add (such as Benoist's points) but rather "it cuts down on arguments".

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748844Oh piss the fuck off.

I want consistency because it's an element I find important in the games I play. Consistency helps me to immerse in the game and think like my character. It has fucking nothing to do with "maturity" or whatever else you fucking think it does, so get off your high horse.

Funny, I find myself thinking like my character more when I'm not focusing on the damn rules in the first place.

I also don't assume that every chest is exactly the same and should have the same DC.  Some may have rusty mechanisms, well-oiled, etc.  "Hey, I wanna open this chest"  "YOu look at the lock - it looks pretty well made, you'll need a " "Shit, I failed".  That's closer to thinking like my character than:

"Okay, I'm going to open this chest.  It's made of oak, and has a superior lock, so that's +3 to its DC.  Oh, you said it's dwarven?  Well, that makes it a +5.  Wait, is it in good maintenance or is there a rusty modifier?  Okay, combined with my skill of 8, and my three feats that apply, I need a 12 or better."

I'm pretty sure my character doesn't think like that.

I find the philosophical and abstract arguments in many posts about this subject (both here and in the companion threads that have been active this week) totally overblown and idealized to the point of meaninglessness.

The reality is that all of these games we're discussing are pretty similar in number/complexity of rules. And they all generally have rules that at least try to deal with a similar range of events that come up during play (throwing an axe; being lit on fire; etc.). This generalization absolutely includes OD&D, which is crawling with all sorts of rules for all sorts of things.

If there is a question here worth discussing, it is how skillfully various game designers 'solved' the problem faced by all table top roleplaying games: how do I formulate and present a set of rules so that everyone understands what it is we are doing, bit without creating an overwhelming pile of details and awkward mechanics. There is obviously some judgement that comes into play in recognizing which games solve this well and which don't, but it is not a purely arbitrary matter of taste. Some rankings of games in this way are rational and others are just fan-boy ranting.

I suspect you could have a good discussion of this subject on this forum provided you stick with games that don't have an emotionally overwrought fan base. Unfortunately, you can't really talk about this subject for OD&D or some other OSR favorite because before you know it a half dozen febrile shit stains will descend and declare that everyone everywhere should lick their pee hole, or whatever it is they always say when they get mad.

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.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748917I 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.

It also depends on the type of rules that you're talking about.

Rules about consequences of actions tend to create more creativity than rules about micro-bonuses/penalties to actions, or rules that explicitly say "you can do this, that, or this other thing."

Quote from: robiswrong;748918It also depends on the type of rules that you're talking about.

Rules about consequences of actions tend to create more creativity than rules about micro-bonuses/penalties to actions, or rules that explicitly say "you can do this, that, or this other thing."

no.
Rules that specify what you can do often lead to uses of those things.  

I always write my own spells for a game, since using the generics from a rule set is less 'setting specific'. And these are rules that define what a caster can and cannot do.  Yet they also create a much more 'setting specific feel' than the uber-generic spellbook, and a feel and ideal that allows the PCs to go beyond the typical uses of spell x or spell y that they read in the dragon or on a thread.  

Again, just one situation...and it can go both ways...but having a player have to create their responses from whole cloth instead of pretending that their 71st iteration of a mage who has magic missile and charm person is more different from their 70th holds some weight.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748917Not doubting you that there are GMs like that out there, but there are certainly, without doubt, without question, times that more rules enhance imagination.

Wait, what?!

I don't understand what you mean by this? How can more rules enhance imagination?

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;748930Wait, what?!

I don't understand what you mean by this? How can more rules enhance imagination?

Having a definition of what you can or can't do, forces thinking ways around the limitation.  A game where everyone can climb anything if you roll well enough no matter the surface means no one will ever find a clever way around (that might just bypass all the guards).

It's the old "No/Yes, but" dichotomy.  "No" means now I have to think of something else, perhaps rather damn quickly.   "Yes, but" means the GM has taken my suggestion of what I want my character to do, Huzzah! and woven in a dramatic consequence - but, the character still did what I wanted it to, we're still riffing off of my scriptwriting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748924no.
Rules that specify what you can do often lead to uses of those things.  

I always write my own spells for a game, since using the generics from a rule set is less 'setting specific'. And these are rules that define what a caster can and cannot do.  Yet they also create a much more 'setting specific feel' than the uber-generic spellbook, and a feel and ideal that allows the PCs to go beyond the typical uses of spell x or spell y that they read in the dragon or on a thread.

Okay, I get what you're saying.  Limiting what players can do forces them to use what they have in creative ways.

That's a little different type of thing than whether players try things that aren't on their character sheets, but I see your point.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;748930Wait, what?!

I don't understand what you mean by this? How can more rules enhance imagination?

that which impedes the way becomes the way.  

A framework sometimes is more useful for creating a thing than the lack of a framework.  Do more words in a language stifle poetry or enhance it?  Do more ingredients always mean less options for culinary delight or more?

A more open game systems has more options and is applicable to more general creativity; but a setting with more setting specific rules can often allow for more setting specific imagination.

Quote from: robiswrong;748935Okay, I get what you're saying.  Limiting what players can do forces them to use what they have in creative ways.

That's a little different type of thing than whether players try things that aren't on their character sheets, but I see your point.

Both are valid, BTW.  Just a good GM can take advantage of both situations.

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

This statement totally implies that normal people can't handle having a referee making a ruling, that a referee cannot make consistent rulings in a manner satisfying to the participants of the game, and that consequently the rules must play the nanny for the men-children, otherwise they just can't play nice. For some gamers other than yourself, it is factually wrong. I am one of those.

Quote from: Tetsubo;748558Whether we play HERO or Fudge I think we all play with the same number of rules.

That's... insane. It kind of flabbergasts me to read this, to tell you the truth.

God help you if you apply this kind of reasoning to real-life situations as well. The world doesn't work that way.

Quote from: Benoist;748938That's... insane. It kind of flabbergasts me to read this, to tell you the truth.

God help you if you apply this kind of reasoning to real-life situations as well. The world doesn't work that way.

I think the implication is that at the end of the day, all the situations we adjudicate in a session have "rules" associated with them, the only difference being whether they're written in advance or determined on the fly.

Quote from: robiswrong;748941I think the implication is that at the end of the day, all the situations we adjudicate in a session have "rules" associated with them, the only difference being whether they're written in advance or determined on the fly.

I read the implication to be that we somehow all work with the exact same brain and are prompt to require a ruling or a rule at the same exact moments, which is such a projection on one's part believing everyone thinks the same way, and so blatantly wrong to me, I don't know what to say, beyond "this is insane".

Two different referees will use the VERY same rule differently, at different moments, with a difference frequency in the game, to begin with. Then we have situations in which a referee will not invoke any rule or ruling at all, while another would for reason X or Y, each dependent on a variety of factors like the conceptualization of the environment, how each referee construes the role of rules and rulings in the game, what particular thresholds require rules and/or rulings applied to each particular situation, etc.

One referee will see a rugged inclined wall and declare the thief doesn't need to roll and climbs the hill just fine. Another will ask for a climb check. Another will ask for a climb check and apply a modifier. Another yet will just declare there's a rough 5-in-6 of success. All rules are not equals, rulings are not necessarily rules, and people certainly don't use the same amount of each in their own games.

That's an absolute fallacy, like pretending that there's some sort of objective, karmic "game balance" out there that game design ought to tend towards, always. This is not how it works at all, from my standpoint.

Quote from: CRKrueger;748933Having a definition of what you can or can't do, forces thinking ways around the limitation.  A game where everyone can climb anything if you roll well enough no matter the surface means no one will ever find a clever way around (that might just bypass all the guards).

It's the old "No/Yes, but" dichotomy.  "No" means now I have to think of something else, perhaps rather damn quickly.   "Yes, but" means the GM has taken my suggestion of what I want my character to do, Huzzah! and woven in a dramatic consequence - but, the character still did what I wanted it to, we're still riffing off of my scriptwriting.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748936that which impedes the way becomes the way.  

A framework sometimes is more useful for creating a thing than the lack of a framework.  Do more words in a language stifle poetry or enhance it?  Do more ingredients always mean less options for culinary delight or more?

A more open game systems has more options and is applicable to more general creativity; but a setting with more setting specific rules can often allow for more setting specific imagination.

uh....

I think I never want to play that way...

Because that makes absolutely no logical sense to me...

Quote from: CRKrueger;748933Having a definition of what you can or can't do, forces thinking ways around the limitation. *A game where everyone can climb anything if you roll well enough no matter the surface means no one will ever find a clever way around (that might just bypass all the guards).

It's the old "No/Yes, but" dichotomy. *"No" means now I have to think of something else, perhaps rather damn quickly. * "Yes, but" means the GM has taken my suggestion of what I want my character to do, Huzzah! and woven in a dramatic consequence - but, the character still did what I wanted it to, we're still riffing off of my scriptwriting.

Ok, so let me get this straight.

You like a plethora of rules because it help stop arguments over DM adjudication.

But, the rules force players to "think around" the rules, thus forcing you to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules eventually.

So now you have to make up a rule?

Does this even make sense?

I've heard this arguement a thousand times.

If someone says "we need a ton of clear rules to play baseball because my friends argue over everything".

You've just created more fodder for them to argue over ... they will push into more and more minute detail until you're playing some foolish game that doesn't even resemble baseball.

Perhaps those people should be told to shut up and play... chill out or leave.

I've never heard anyone say, at the end of any game "that was one hell of a consistent game!"

It's silly... you want climbing rules to be super consistent while you battle a fire breathing reptile, who's wings could never support it, in a "fantasy" game.

I often wonder how many people actually play these games... and how many people just read rules books and say "they got the weight on the Longsword wrong by one pound".

Play however you like... I enjoy playing with my friends who know that, if they become a whiny jerk at my table, they don't get invited back unless they knock it off and grow up.

Who wants to hang out with those people?

They apparently push the DM into extra bookkeeping so they can gripe over a fantasy game.

I'm happy I play with people who are at the table to have fun.

And if someone mentions how rules help to "suspend disbelief" one more time when referring to a game where you can have 100 hit points... and thus fall from a height of over 200 feet, get up, and walk away... I'm going to just poop my pants on the spot.

It a fantasy game.

Quote from: Dunnagin;748970Ok, so let me get this straight.

You like a plethora of rules because it help stop arguments over DM adjudication.

Umm, no.  My statement had absolutely nothing to do with adjudication, or players arguing.  Talk about projection, Christ.  

It has to do with definite limits that force players to think of something else.  Take Mage, some players have difficulty with the "Do whatever you want" nature of the magic system.  Compare with AD&D spells, which have a definite effect, yet players come up with fiendishly clever ways to use those spells.

One of the main stimulants of human creativity is adaptation, it's a survival trait.  Without limits or a "No", either delivered via rulebook or GM, there is nothing to adapt to other then the GM's storytelling.  

Every person is different however, and some prefer totally freeform systems, go for it.  For those who like structure there's OD&D to Phoenix Command and anything in between.

Quote from: CRKrueger;748979Umm, no.  My statement had absolutely nothing to do with adjudication, or players arguing.  Talk about projection, Christ.  

It has to do with definite limits that force players to think of something else.  Take Mage, some players have difficulty with the "Do whatever you want" nature of the magic system.  Compare with AD&D spells, which have a definite effect, yet players come up with fiendishly clever ways to use those spells.

One of the main stimulants of human creativity is adaptation, it's a survival trait.  Without limits or a "No", either delivered via rulebook or GM, there is nothing to adapt to other then the GM's storytelling.  

Every person is different however, and some prefer totally freeform systems, go for it.  For those who like structure there's OD&D to Phoenix Command and anything in between.

Unfortunately, I find that there more rules you have, the more these creative corner cases are addressed... and subverted.

If the spell is written loosely, there is room for the creativity you describe.

3.5 & Parhfinder spells are written very "tight", specifically in order to curtail the type of play you describe.

Can't be cast under x circumstance
Cannot be used for x purpose
Is limited to x

The descriptions are very clear... like handcuffs.

Hypothetical situation:

You are a company that is selling an RPG.

You realize, from collected data, that most groups play using one set of core books.

The purchaser of said books is typically the DM.

If you could get each Player to buy a book, you could sell more books!

Solution: Focus the game on more complex Char Ops and entice each player to buy their own players handbook.

Second Gen Solution: Wrap all the books into one core book and sell every player a more expensive book.

None of that is game design for the sake of entertainment, it's game design for profit.

In older editions, you might have three Fighters who, functionally were exactly the same.

Your characters Int is lowest, which doesn't impact game play that much, but it does make you decide that he's a brutish thug.

My character got lucky with Cha, so I make him a suave knight type fellow.

The third guy has a low Con, so he decides that his character suffered a grievous wound on the battlefield during his earlier exploits.

Mechanically, they are pretty much the same... but we can role play the crap out of those characters with 0 char ops.

Or, we can purchase more complex math tomes from a companies marketing... I mean, game design... department.

*

What you're talking about isn't rules, it's WotC.  For what it's worth, 3.5/ PF makes my teeth itch these days, but Shadowrun second, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, Hackmaster, it's all good.  There's a large zone between free form Roleplaying and running the entire PF catalog RAW.

Quote from: CRKrueger;748983What you're talking about isn't rules, it's WotC.  For what it's worth, 3.5/ PF makes my teeth itch these days, but Shadowrun second, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, Hackmaster, it's all good.  There's a large zone between free form Roleplaying and running the entire PF catalog RAW.

Fair enough... and I agree that any game you enjoy is a good game.

I've just been overly perturbed lately about D&D specifically, and many of its modern variants, has been hijacked by the type of "game design" I described previously.

The sad part is, I think D&D and other tabletop RPGs have a lot to learn from modern video game design... but designers tend to throw out the strength of the game (live human adjudication), in order to add more math and overly detailed sub components (video games handle this easily behind the scenes, tabletop games can turn into bulky rules beasts if they try to mimic what computer processors can do).

Video games keep trying to add more freedom, player agency and emergent plots to games... D&D had this from the beginning, and seems to be slowly losing it.

If you get my drift?

Quote from: Old Geezer;748908If literally nobody can remember, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

It matters to *me*. The only person that counts when it gets right down to when I GM. I know for a fact that I have made bad, inconsistent calls. I don't want to do that. It isn't fair to the players. It shows a lack of professionalism. I don't want to just let that 'slide'.

Quote from: robiswrong;748941I think the implication is that at the end of the day, all the situations we adjudicate in a session have "rules" associated with them, the only difference being whether they're written in advance or determined on the fly.

Exactly. How he missed that is a mystery.

Quote from: Benoist;748938This statement totally implies that normal people can't handle having a referee making a ruling, that a referee cannot make consistent rulings in a manner satisfying to the participants of the game, and that consequently the rules must play the nanny for the men-children, otherwise they just can't play nice. For some gamers other than yourself, it is factually wrong. I am one of those.



That's... insane. It kind of flabbergasts me to read this, to tell you the truth.

God help you if you apply this kind of reasoning to real-life situations as well. The world doesn't work that way.

Rules adjudicated 'on the fly' will never, ever be consistent. Some folks don't care about that. I do. I have seen far too many situations go bad because situation A was ruled differently from session to session or even within a single session. If we all have the same set of rules that cover the situation, we can all agree on the outcome. Consensus.

I don't see gamers as 'men-children'. I see them as people. And people do best with agreed upon rules that are codified and can be referenced. The rule of law rather than of folklore and anecdote. The hardest rules to change are the unwritten rules. Both in life and gaming.

Quote from: Dunnagin;748980Unfortunately, I find that there more rules you have, the more these creative corner cases are addressed... and subverted.

If the spell is written loosely, there is room for the creativity you describe.

3.5 & Parhfinder spells are written very "tight", specifically in order to curtail the type of play you describe.

Can't be cast under x circumstance
Cannot be used for x purpose
Is limited to x

The descriptions are very clear... like handcuffs.

Yes.  In this particular case, these rules curtail imaginative use.

But, in the same way, more written spells are also rules. And more spells often broaden the imaginative horizons for the players.  Or rules for combining spells would add to the word count and amount of rules, but would still allow for more permutations.
So, it is not one or the other.  In this way, one could look at any rule system and see if the rules are more open ended or close ended.

Quote from: Tetsubo;748994It matters to *me*. The only person that counts when it gets right down to when I GM. I know for a fact that I have made bad, inconsistent calls. I don't want to do that. It isn't fair to the players. It shows a lack of professionalism.

You're a professional GM?

Quote from: DunnaginSolution: Focus the game on more complex Char Ops and entice each player to buy their own players handbook.

Second Gen Solution: Wrap all the books into one core book and sell every player a more expensive book.

Totally the logic behind this but there's also a third option:

Paizo Solution: Make virtually all of the important rules free and easily accesible from anywhere and take pains to update them, illustrate them, and supplement them with optional third party content, again all for free.

Whether or not complicated character options emerged for economic reasons, there are some who like them for non-economic reasons.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with that last point, but I think a number of people on this board believe that catering to that niche has been detrimental to the broader hobby in general, and D&D in particular.

Quote from: Dunnagin;748984Fair enough... and I agree that any game you enjoy is a good game.

I've just been overly perturbed lately about D&D specifically, and many of its modern variants, has been hijacked by the type of "game design" I described previously.

The sad part is, I think D&D and other tabletop RPGs have a lot to learn from modern video game design... but designers tend to throw out the strength of the game (live human adjudication), in order to add more math and overly detailed sub components (video games handle this easily behind the scenes, tabletop games can turn into bulky rules beasts if they try to mimic what computer processors can do).

Video games keep trying to add more freedom, player agency and emergent plots to games... D&D had this from the beginning, and seems to be slowly losing it.

If you get my drift?

You're preaching to the choir, brother, I'm with you.  That's why I don't play "Modern" D&D anymore.

Quote from: BobloblahI don't think anyone really disagrees with that last point, but I think a number of people on this board believe that catering to that niche has been detrimental to the broader hobby in general, and D&D in particular.

I think that kind of depends on how you feel the state of the hobby is.  Personally I'm pretty happy with it.  I like Pathfinder, but I also like Lamentations of the Falme Princess - I like some of the newer games and I'm also glad that the OSR exists.  I mean, I think that 4E was pretty awful and Next may well be awful too, so in that sense I'd agree that complex char-op rules may have been detrimental to "D&D" interpreted in the most narrow sense, but I don't think they did much real "damage" to the hobby at large.

I think a lot of the disagreement on this subject stems from the fact that there are several qualitatively different kinds of rules in table-top rpg's; the people who hate 'rules for everything' are talking about one kind; the people who like 'rules for everything' are talking about another.

You could probably divide this up in a number of different ways, but I think there are four basic types of rules in all or most games:
-'structural' rules that define what happens in the game in the broadest terms, what a character is, how play proceeds on the time scale of an event/encounter/session/campaign.
- 'procedural' rules that tell you how to resolve an attack, jump a chasm, cast a spell, etc.
- 'situational' rules that tell you what happens when your attack is aimed at an invisible zebra galloping down a ladder.
- And 'content' rules that tell you what a fireball spell is or how many hit dice an orc chieftain has.

Seen this way, most of the anti-rules-for-everything crowd is mostly pissing on situational rules. I would say they have a point — these sorts of rules are what make games hard to learn and run, they often eat up page count for pointless (or at least uninteresting) reasons. And they are the kinds of things a referee should be prepared to adjudicate on the fly. That said, they don't ruin games or force players to behave like mindless goons. This whole line of criticism is a peculiar mix of straw man and ad hominem attacks - 'if you disagree with me you are a fool who doesn't understand rpg's, plus your game play, which I've never seen, is bad in some way I can't really describe'.

Whether you agree with me or not, this sort of breakdown also clarifies what I mean when I critique some old classic, like OD&D. This game is total genius at structural and content rules, correctly (in my view) pays little attention to situational rules, but is a train wreck at procedural rules. e.g., it presents two parallel combat systems that differ radically in mechanics and power progression, one of which isn't really presented, and both of which use ornate table-based mechanics to solve a very simple dice-throwing decision.

Quote from: S'mon;749010You're a professional GM?

This is no game; this shit is serious. Act professional. ;)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748843Pedantry really irks me.

It's not pedantry. If you're playing a rules light game and treat every ruling as if it were a new rule hard-coded into the game, then you will very quickly no longer be playing a rules light game.

The only way to play a rules light game is to treat rulings as one-offs and get on with it.

QuoteIf consistency is not important to you, then we're not going to agree. Consistency is of high importance to me.

Consistency isn't important to me, we don't agree. Need for consistency is subjective. The problem with this thread is people are arguing about their preferences as if they were objective.

QuoteIf you think it's not worth the potential look-up times, then fine; but for me, it is.

It's not just the potential look up times, it's the rules-lawyering that goes along with it, and the time and effort it takes to commit the rules to memory. I find it much easier, much more interesting, and more fun, to creatively respond to what the players throw at me. Of course I also have a crappy memory and really, really, like seat of the pants thinking. People whose brains work differently from mine may have different preferences. I'm okay with that.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748844Oh piss the fuck off.

I want consistency because it's an element I find important in the games I play. Consistency helps me to immerse in the game and think like my character. It has fucking nothing to do with "maturity" or whatever else you fucking think it does, so get off your high horse.

The argument made over and over in this discussion over the years it that rulings turn a game into "mother may I" or "who can best suck up to the GM". In other words assuming that GMs (and players) need to be constrained by rules because they are dicks, or stupid, or naïve and easily manipulated, or otherwise immature.

Quote from: Tetsubo;748997Rules adjudicated 'on the fly' will never, ever be consistent. Some folks don't care about that. I do. I have seen far too many situations go bad because situation A was ruled differently from session to session or even within a single session. If we all have the same set of rules that cover the situation, we can all agree on the outcome. Consensus.

Which is why we never see disagreements over the application of rules. Sports referees are always right, legal cases never get appealed, sentences are always consistent, RPG rules-lawyers won't derail a session with a 45 minute argument over minutia, etc.

QuoteI don't see gamers as 'men-children'. I see them as people. And (SOME BUT NOT ALL) people do best with agreed upon rules that are codified and can be referenced. The rule of law rather than of folklore and anecdote. The hardest rules to change are the unwritten rules. Both in life and gaming.

Fixed your typo.

Less trollishly, people are different. Some need more structure, some less. Your preferences are not universal. Some people do in fact do better with agreed upon and codified rules, some find them infuriatingly constraining. Some are in between.

Quote from: Larsdangly;749024I think a lot of the disagreement on this subject stems from the fact that there are several qualitatively different kinds of rules in table-top rpg's; the people who hate 'rules for everything' are talking about one kind; the people who like 'rules for everything' are talking about another.

You could probably divide this up in a number of different ways, but I think there are four basic types of rules in all or most games:
-'structural' rules that define what happens in the game in the broadest terms, what a character is, how play proceeds on the time scale of an event/encounter/session/campaign.
- 'procedural' rules that tell you how to resolve an attack, jump a chasm, cast a spell, etc.
- 'situational' rules that tell you what happens when your attack is aimed at an invisible zebra galloping down a ladder.
- And 'content' rules that tell you what a fireball spell is or how many hit dice an orc chieftain has.

Seen this way, most of the anti-rules-for-everything crowd is mostly pissing on situational rules.

I'd say this is pretty useful.

QuoteI would say they have a point — these sorts of rules are what make games hard to learn and run, they often eat up page count for pointless (or at least uninteresting) reasons. And they are the kinds of things a referee should be prepared to adjudicate on the fly. That said, they don't ruin games or force players to behave like mindless goons.

Eh, some constraint is good for creativity. Too little, and you can get choice paralysis (too many options). Too much, and you get mechanical play.

Of course, what is too much and what too little varies from person to person, so it isn't exactly cut and dried.

QuoteThis whole line of criticism is a peculiar mix of straw man and ad hominem attacks - 'if you disagree with me you are a fool who doesn't understand rpg's, plus your game play, which I've never seen, is bad in some way I can't really describe'.

I think it's more "people are fundamentally the same, by which I mean just like me, because I can't imagine anyone could need different things than me, so if you think differently you're deluded".

QuoteWhether you agree with me or not, this sort of breakdown also clarifies what I mean when I critique some old classic, like OD&D. This game is total genius at structural and content rules, correctly (in my view) pays little attention to situational rules, but is a train wreck at procedural rules. e.g., it presents two parallel combat systems that differ radically in mechanics and power progression, one of which isn't really presented, and both of which use ornate table-based mechanics to solve a very simple dice-throwing decision.

I actually don't have a problem with that; pick one, or use them all depending on situation.

And I like tables/resolution matrices.

Quote from: S'mon;749010You're a professional GM?

Does he wear a mask?

Quote from: Tetsubo;748994It matters to *me*. The only person that counts when it gets right down to when I GM. I know for a fact that I have made bad, inconsistent calls. I don't want to do that. It isn't fair to the players. It shows a lack of professionalism. I don't want to just let that 'slide'.

If nobody including me can remember the last ruling, I spend my time playing the game instead of wallowing in angst over missing some Platonic ideal of "consistency" that nobody including myself can measure.

Also, "Professionalism"?  Seriously?  How much you getting paid for this gig?

Quote from: apparition13;749046The argument made over and over in this discussion over the years it that rulings turn a game into "mother may I" or "who can best suck up to the GM". In other words assuming that GMs (and players) need to be constrained by rules because they are dicks, or stupid, or naïve and easily manipulated, or otherwise immature.

Last I checked we are human so yes we are dicks, stupid, naive, easily manipulated, and otherwise immature.

Quote from: Old Geezer;749048If nobody including me can remember the last ruling, I spend my time playing the game instead of wallowing in angst over missing some Platonic ideal of "consistency" that nobody including myself can measure.

Then I question how you can keep a game going without it turning into storytelling time.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749056Last I checked we are human so yes we are dicks, stupid, naive, easily manipulated, and otherwise immature.

Yes we are all human but some of us learn to deal with that shit and get rid of most of it when we grow up.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749056Then I question how you can keep a game going without it turning into storytelling time.

Wait, what? Are you saying that you think people are lying when they say they have managed to do so?

So in last night's game, the party ran into a bunch of giant rats. One player that had two rats on him decided to drop some rations on the floor hoping the rats would go for the food instead of him. I ruled that there was a 65% chance they would. Good ruling? Bad ruling? Who the fuck knows. But it kept things moving along. Now, as far as I'm aware there's not a single edition that has a rule about this, so what do the rules junkies say? There needs to be yet another rule for this kind of thing? D&D 6e better have rules about throwing food at rats during melee? The pfsrd needs to be updated?

Quote from: Sommerjon;749056Last I checked we are human so yes we are dicks, stupid, naive, easily manipulated, and otherwise immature.

That's a sad statement about human nature. My condolences.

It explains so much.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749056Then I question how you can keep a game going without it turning into storytelling time.

WTF? LOL Are you for realz? :D

Quote from: aspiringlich;749060So in last night's game, the party ran into a bunch of giant rats. One player that had two rats on him decided to drop some rations on the floor hoping the rats would go for the food instead of him. I ruled that there was a 65% chance they would. Good ruling? Bad ruling? Who the fuck knows. But it kept things moving along. Now, as far as I'm aware there's not a single edition that has a rule about this, so what do the rules junkies say? There needs to be yet another rule for this kind of thing? D&D 6e better have rules about throwing food at rats during melee? The pfsrd needs to be updated?

Rules Junkies.  heh.  

I think those of us that have used, designed, or played a lot of rules-heavy (and most of us also like some rules-lite, so funny) would tell you that it was never, ever an intention for a game with rules for everything.  Maybe more rules for things that are expected to happen.  But there are maybe a tiny group of zealots who ever thought a rule for everything was a goal, or that a GM would avoid a bunch of adjudications in any game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;749057Yes we are all human but some of us learn to deal with that shit and get rid of most of it when we grow up.

Except when it comes to this website?

Quote from: Sommerjon;749066Except when it comes to this website?

You think this is the only place on the web where otherwise rational people suddenly get diarrhea of the mouth?

Man, you must be stupid, naive, etc. ;)

Quote from: Tetsubo;748995Exactly. How he missed that is a mystery.

Because your point is still pretty off?

If I'm running D&D, I'm going to worry about how much weight a character is carrying, because that's part of the game.

If I'm running Fate, I'm not, because it's not part of the game.

So there's a concrete example where the choice of games impacts the actual number of rules/rulings in a session.

I think you're making the "all games are the same" argument.

Quote from: Tetsubo;748994It matters to *me*. The only person that counts when it gets right down to when I GM. I know for a fact that I have made bad, inconsistent calls. I don't want to do that. It isn't fair to the players. It shows a lack of professionalism. I don't want to just let that 'slide'.

You are aware there is a HUGE difference between *ME* and "OTHER PEOPLE", "EVERYONE", "ALL" right? What you're saying here (nevermind the "professionalism" thing which is like... WTF) runs contrary to what you said earlier, about how you believe EVERYONE uses the same amount of rules, whether they are rules or rulings during the game.

Either your statements only apply to you and you only (in which case, okay, that's cool, I can get why you if you don't feel comfortable making rulings during the game you'd want extensive rules instead), or you try to make generalities such as "I don't understand why people don't do it my way because we ALL use the same amount of rules and that's just OBJECTIVE common sense we should all do it this way" in which case you're going to get a big huge mouth full of NOPE thrown back in your face.

You do understand the difference, correct?

Quote from: Benoist;749082You are aware there is a HUGE difference between *ME* and "OTHER PEOPLE", "EVERYONE", "ALL" right? What you're saying here (nevermind the "professionalism" thing which is like... WTF) runs contrary to what you said earlier, about how you believe EVERYONE uses the same amount of rules, whether they are rules or rulings during the game.

Either your statements only apply to you and you only (in which case, okay, that's cool, I can get why you if you don't feel comfortable making rulings during the game you'd want extensive rules instead), or you try to make generalities such as "I don't understand why people don't do it my way because we ALL use the same amount of rules and that's just OBJECTIVE common sense we should all do it this way" in which case you're going to get a big huge mouth full of NOPE thrown back in your face.

You do understand the difference, correct?

Probably not.

He needs to understand that the good news is that solipsism is correct, but the bad news is it isn't him.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;749067You think this is the only place on the web where otherwise rational people suddenly get diarrhea of the mouth?

Man, you must be stupid, naive, etc. ;)

Oh, so

Quote from: Exploderwizard;749057Yes we are all human but some of us learn to deal with that shit and get rid of most of it when we grow up.

isn't accurate, just more of the "onetruewayism" from this place.

Quote from: Benoist;749063That's a sad statement about human nature. My condolences.

It explains so much.

No I'm a realist.

Quote from: Benoist;749063WTF? LOL Are you for realz? :D

Yes.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749085Oh, so
isn't accurate, just more of the "onetruewayism" from this place.

The interwebs are like Tahiti - its a magical place.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;749090The interwebs are like Tahiti - its a magical place.

I lol'ed

Quote from: Sommerjon;749088No I'm a realist.

Not an original response. I feel sorry for you (really).

Quote from: Benoist;749115Not an original response. I feel sorry for you (really).

S'alright.

Quote from: aspiringlich;749060So in last night's game, the party ran into a bunch of giant rats. One player that had two rats on him decided to drop some rations on the floor hoping the rats would go for the food instead of him. I ruled that there was a 65% chance they would. Good ruling? Bad ruling? Who the fuck knows. But it kept things moving along.

Good ruling IMO, especially if you announced the chance before rolling (I'm assuming the guy was retreating, not trying to kill the rats). Better than having them automatically go for the food; much much better than having them automatcally ignore it.

Quote from: S'mon;749159Good ruling IMO, especially if you announced the chance before rolling (I'm assuming the guy was retreating, not trying to kill the rats). Better than having them automatically go for the food; much much better than having them automatcally ignore it.

No way.

There needs to be a table of adjustments to the chance of the rats going for the food based on type of rats, number of rats, the type and freshness of the food, how long it's been since the rats have eaten, the quantity of food thrown, how delectable the PC smells, etc.

How could you be fair otherwise?

Quote from: robiswrong;749160No way.

There needs to be a table of adjustments to the chance of the rats going for the food based on type of rats, number of rats, the type and freshness of the food, how long it's been since the rats have eaten, the quantity of food thrown, how delectable the PC smells, etc.

How could you be fair otherwise?

Yeah much better to get on your knees and lick the hair off your DM's nutsack.
"mufmpgt mai eeyd"  may sound like globby gook, but with the Dm's around here with all of their years of getting their scrotum cleaned, they know Mother May I when it's said.

It is fun to poke at imaginary morons, but what reason do we have to think anyone really does this sort of hyper-over-engineering of modifiers to rare events? Are we really just talking about a group of 12 year olds playing Cyborg Commando in 1987?

Quote from: Sommerjon;749056Last I checked we are human so yes we are dicks, stupid, naive, easily manipulated, and otherwise immature.

All humans, all the time, in all situations, to all people? How very Hobbesian of you.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749088No I'm a realist.

Given your Hobbesian stance, I'd say classical realist. Which is kind of a contradiction, since you don't seem to like DM fiat (the Hobbesian solution of an absolute ruler), but rather think the rule of law will settle the issue. Yet if people are as you say, they will twist and misuse the law to their advantage if there is no authority to overrule them.

You'd be more consistent if your total pessimism about human nature embraced GM fiat as the only way to prevent anarchy.

Quote from: Larsdangly;749172It is fun to poke at imaginary morons, but what reason do we have to think anyone really does this sort of hyper-over-engineering of modifiers to rare events? Are we really just talking about a group of 12 year olds playing Cyborg Commando in 1987?

If modifiers stack, then good play means squeezing every last one you can out of the RAW.

The irony that this usually involves trying to convince the GM to buy your contention that the modifiers you are trying to stack are legitimate in this situation, "mother may I"ing in other words, doesn't seem to register.

Quote from: Sommerjon;749171Yeah much better to get on your knees and lick the hair off your DM's nutsack.
"mufmpgt mai eeyd"  may sound like globby gook, but with the Dm's around here with all of their years of getting their scrotum cleaned, they know Mother May I when it's said.

Crude and disgusting imagery aside ... do you not realize that you do exactly the same thing when you want the rulebook to tell you what you can and can't do? You simply substitute the authority of the game designers for the authority of the DM, but it's no less an appeal to someone else's authority. Give up on your pretense at autonomy as a player: whether's it's Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet, or the DM at your table, you're someone else's bitch.

It took 15 pages to get to the oral sex imagery, and even then it's only SJ doing his piss off the grogs schtick.  Good thing I guess, but sure is a change.

Quote from: Larsdangly;749172It is fun to poke at imaginary morons, but what reason do we have to think anyone really does this sort of hyper-over-engineering of modifiers to rare events? Are we really just talking about a group of 12 year olds playing Cyborg Commando in 1987?

It's a strawman, sure, exaggerated for humorous effect.

Much the same as the idea of "mother may I" where the GM is making totally arbitrary decisions without any guideposts is a strawman.

The issue is what happens the next time that someone throws down food, and the GM decides that it's only got a 30% chance of distracting the rats, because they're defending their nest and are comparatively well-fed?  Does the player accept the GM judgement, or does the GM have to justify the change?

Keep in mind that rats being more likely to ignore food in this case would *make sense*, but there's little way for the PCs to know *why* the rats are less distractable.

We end up with three options:

1) The players accept the GMs judgement and get on with the damn game.
2) Rats always have to have the same chance of being distracted by food, leading to a *lack of depth* in the game
3) GMs have to justify their decision, possibly with preset modifiers.

I'm a big fan of option 1.  So long as I'm playing with a non-dick GM, it's easier for me to just accept that "hey, these rats are behaving differently" and move on with it.

Quote from: robiswrong;749187I'm a big fan of option 1.  So long as I'm playing with a non-dick GM, it's easier for me to just accept that "hey, these rats are behaving differently" and move on with it.

If one simply assumed non-dick referee and non-dick other players, there would be nothing to talk about on internet gaming forums.

Quote from: Old Geezer;749188If one simply assumed non-dick referee and non-dick other players, there would be nothing to talk about on internet gaming forums.

I think that the actual-dick DMs and actual-dick players spoken about on internet gaming forums are mainly hypothetical outside of the odd convention game...

Quote from: robiswrong;749160There needs to be a table of adjustments to the chance of the rats going for the food based on type of rats, number of rats, the type and freshness of the food, how long it's been since the rats have eaten, the quantity of food thrown, how delectable the PC smells, etc.

How could you be fair otherwise?

Yes.

The question - do the rats go for the bait, or continue munching on the PCs - needs to be one that can be answered within the rules.

On its face, it seems to be an odd corner case. But really, it's not: it's a specific instance of the idea of a PC attempting to redirect a creature's attention to something else. That general concept is something a TTRPG could reasonably cover.

All the other aspects of the situation - the fact that they're rats, what kind of rats they are, how many there are, the type of bait, all these other little factoids - should be represented in those mechanics, in some fashion or another. Some of them may be too specific (how much granularity are we looking for in our rat species?), while others simply too computationally-intensive (asking how long ago these specific rats ate may be too much complexity, in terms of work the DM would need to do, especially if the rats were generated as a random encounter), so it's probably safe to assume some level of abstraction: little factors may cancel each other out. I'd probably argue that if you have to make contortions to figure out if a given factor is relevant, if there isn't an immediate "of course it matters," then it probably is insignificant enough to ignore, in terms of the mechanics.

You deride this example as absurd, because you think a DM should simply make up a number and "get on with it." I only think your example is absurd because you are using it as hyperbole and seem more interested in lambasting it than actually understanding the position it represents. The mechanics for this situation could very reasonably be extrapolated from a system that had a generic baseline for this sort of situation, which would not be unreasonable.

Quote from: aspiringlich;749183You simply substitute the authority of the game designers for the authority of the DM, but it's no less an appeal to someone else's authority.

Authority at the system level and authority at the table are two different levels of authority.

The decision of what game to play and who the DM is, while probably related, are different decisions and impact the table on different levels.

Appealing to the game mechanics is an appeal to the agreement by all parties, even the DM, to play by the same set of rules. The rules have no opinion on what anyone at the table does; no matter what you do, if you are playing 3.5 D&D by the book, a fighter always has a BAB of +1.

Take some of the DM's munchies, and he might kill your character in retribution. Bring some munchies for the DM instead, maybe he's more lenient with you that evening.

These are clearly not the same sort of "appeal to authority" you make them out to be.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192Authority at the system level and authority at the table are two different levels of authority.

The decision of what game to play and who the DM is, while probably related, are different decisions and impact the table on different levels.

Appealing to the game mechanics is an appeal to the agreement by all parties, even the DM, to play by the same set of rules. The rules have no opinion on what anyone at the table does; no matter what you do, if you are playing 3.5 D&D by the book, a fighter always has a BAB of +1.

Take some of the DM's munchies, and he might kill your character in retribution. Bring some munchies for the DM instead, maybe he's more lenient with you that evening.

These are clearly not the same sort of "appeal to authority" you make them out to be.

Bullshit. The "system" didn't come down from heaven in the form of Holy Writ. It was designed by human beings who, as it turns out, have less knowledge of what's going on at your game table than the DM does. So you have to make up your mind as to whether their decisions about playing the game are preferable to your DM's decisions. If both you and your DM decide that only the rulebook can give answers and the rulebook's answers are always final, so be it; you apparently think that the designers are smarter than you when it comes to running the game. You've invested them with that authority. Others of us think that the DM we're playing with might be a pretty smart guy too, and might have a better idea of how to run the game at his table than the only-too-human game designers, and are perfectly content to accept his ruling in place of their rules. Call it "Magic Tea Party" all you want; at least our Mad Hatter is sitting at our table.

Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings" (because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

Whether or not the DM is a smart guy or not should not factor into this discussion. If there is a gap in the rules, obviously it falls to the DM to adjudicate. I am saying that my preference is that those gaps be few and far between, or if they are more common, have those gaps coverable by extension of the rules (which would, in essence, be a "ruling" by the DM).

Just to be clear:  I don't give a crap about your preferences.  Knock yourself out.  I'm only responding to the constant assertion that rules-heavy games are necessary to prevent arguments and ensure a "fair" game.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192Yes.

The question - do the rats go for the bait, or continue munching on the PCs - needs to be one that can be answered within the rules.

And the general form of the rules in a rules light game is something like this:

1) PC declares action
2) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
3) PC decides to continue or not.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192All the other aspects of the situation - the fact that they're rats, what kind of rats they are, how many there are, the type of bait, all these other little factoids - should be represented in those mechanics, in some fashion or another. Some of them may be too specific (how much granularity are we looking for in our rat species?), while others simply too computationally-intensive (asking how long ago these specific rats ate may be too much complexity, in terms of work the DM would need to do, especially if the rats were generated as a random encounter), so it's probably safe to assume some level of abstraction: little factors may cancel each other out. I'd probably argue that if you have to make contortions to figure out if a given factor is relevant, if there isn't an immediate "of course it matters," then it probably is insignificant enough to ignore, in terms of the mechanics.

So, here's the thing.  Let's assume that the GM isn't a dick, and is actually trying to run a fair game for the players to have fun with, okay?  So we'll throw that strawman out.  And let's also throw out Alzheimer's/Wonderland GM that has no consistency in anything whatsoever.

In the situation I described where the percentage changes, we can get there by adding appropriate bonuses, or we can get there with a quick judgement call.  If the DM's not being a dick, chances are that the judgement call with be within 10% or so of the 'adding the bonuses' method, and it might even favor the characters (yay).

If the argument in favor of the looking-up-and-adding-up-bonuses method is "it's more fair/consistent, and ends arguments", then I really have to ask - are you *really* going to get into a fucking argument over a 10% chance that your imaginary dude can distract some fucking rats?  Is it *really* that important that it's worth arguing about?  Can't you just presume that whatever variance shows up in *actual play* can be just chalked up to all those minor factors that are too small for the system to worry about individually?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192You deride this example as absurd, because you think a DM should simply make up a number and "get on with it." I only think your example is absurd because you are using it as hyperbole and seem more interested in lambasting it than actually understanding the position it represents. The mechanics for this situation could very reasonably be extrapolated from a system that had a generic baseline for this sort of situation, which would not be unreasonable.

Yes, and guess what - generic systems tend to break at the edges.  And while my proposal was a bit exaggerated, most of the things I'd think you need (what the rats are doing, how hungry they are, whether the food was appropriate, etc.) are pretty damn close to the basics that you'd need for such a "system".

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192Take some of the DM's munchies, and he might kill your character in retribution. Bring some munchies for the DM instead, maybe he's more lenient with you that evening.

Again, you bring up the example of the unfair dickhead GM who's going to kill you because you ate some munchies.

Is this *really* the kind of thing you worry about?  Because, fuck man, play with a better class of people if it is.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings"

Coming up with a ruling takes about as much time as it takes to speak it.  That's a strawman.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196(because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

Now who's just interested in lambasting the "other side" and not trying to understand them?

Quote from: robiswrong;749198And the general form of the rules in a rules light game is something like this:

For whatever reason, you - I think it's been you, anyway - have been framing your arguments solely from the POV of a rules-light game.

As should be evident by now, I prefer rules-heavy games, and so have been - and presently am - arguing from that position.

I just want to make sure that's clear before continuing.

Quote1) PC declares action
2) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
3) PC decides to continue or not.

The immediate question is, of course, why have rules at all? Bring it all the way back to the magic tea party - no rules-as-written, just a GM making adjudications and what-not in response to players trying to things.

That setup can arguably work, with a reasonable GM and reasonable players. Hell, freeform RP pretty much is that, and I've had a couple one-on-one sessions with players that were just that.

What is the motivation for using a rule set somebody else writes? I mean, even in the last few posts we have people arguing the GM is probably a smart individual and can figure things out at the table, that the rules were designed by a distant guy whose rules are necessarily not related, in probably at least some fashion, from the situation at the table in the moment.

I'm honestly curious what the answer is.

QuoteSo, here's the thing.  Let's assume that the GM isn't a dick, and is actually trying to run a fair game for the players to have fun with, okay?  So we'll throw that strawman out.  And let's also throw out Alzheimer's/Wonderland GM that has no consistency in anything whatsoever.

Okay.

QuoteIn the situation I described where the percentage changes, we can get there by adding appropriate bonuses, or we can get there with a quick judgement call.  If the DM's not being a dick, chances are that the judgement call with be within 10% or so of the 'adding the bonuses' method, and it might even favor the characters (yay).

I disagree with the assertion that the judgment call will be within a reasonable deviation of the rules-as-written. GMs are not omniscient; a GM cannot be expected to be even mildly-versed in all the things that come up in a gaming session.

Conversely, you probably shouldn't be expecting that a game designer has that knowledge, either. But in this instance, I'd be willing to give the designer a bit of benefit of the doubt, because he presumably may have had the time to do research on the topics the mechanics are designed for, and/or designed them to dovetail with the rest of the system in whatever manner is appropriate.

Also, I do not see "favoring the characters" as a benefit. Situations are what they are; it doesn't matter who is involved. Favoring characters is not something I value, and IMO kind of detracts from the experience.

Quoteare you *really* going to get into a fucking argument over a 10% chance that your imaginary dude can distract some fucking rats?  Is it *really* that important that it's worth arguing about?

The given example is obviously probably not terribly important. However, I can certainly envision other situations in which it may be.

QuoteYes, and guess what - generic systems tend to break at the edges.  And while my proposal was a bit exaggerated, most of the things I'd think you need (what the rats are doing, how hungry they are, whether the food was appropriate, etc.) are pretty damn close to the basics that you'd need for such a "system".

Whether or not "generic systems" - which is itself a pretty vague term - break at the edges doesn't feel terribly relevant here. That could simply be a case of poor design.

But yes, those do seem like pretty basic elements you'd need to model this scenario. However, this does not need to be as specific as "here is a table for how hungry rats become over time" - a more generic table or some other means of determining hunger in biological entities over time could exist, which rats would then relate to in some fashion.

QuoteAgain, you bring up the example of the unfair dickhead GM who's going to kill you because you ate some munchies.

Is this *really* the kind of thing you worry about?  Because, fuck man, play with a better class of people if it is.

You are getting caught up in the example.

The point is that GMs are subject to whims. They are human, they are fallible, and they may make decisions in the heat of the moment that are not the best decision to make.

Two plus two always equals four. It does not matter if you had a bad day; if you ask someone to give you a mathematical answer, it doesn't matter if you've irritated them or caught them at a bad time, their answer is either right or it is wrong.

That is why, even as a GM, I prefer having a solid rule set to work from. Because I am human, and I have whims; I would rather the mechanical functions of my games not be subject to them.

QuoteComing up with a ruling takes about as much time as it takes to speak it.  That's a strawman.

I really have to disagree, unless you've got an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules being used. Changing an element of the game on a whim can be a dangerous thing.

QuoteNow who's just interested in lambasting the "other side" and not trying to understand them?

I still do not see the distinction between "ruling" and "rule." It seems like splitting hairs to me. If you see it, fine, but I still don't. If you feel like trying to explain it again in a way that might make sense to me, be my guest, but at present I don't see it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;749191I think that the actual-dick DMs and actual-dick players spoken about on internet gaming forums are mainly hypothetical outside of the odd convention game...

That's my experience as well. And if "that guy" was local, everybody knew about him or her via horror stories circulated in gaming circles around.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192The question - do the rats go for the bait, or continue munching on the PCs - needs to be one that can be answered within the rules.

You'd end up with an entire book of nothing but modifiers to the die roll for each and every type of monster. Then the GM would have to dig the book out, look it up, and total all the mods every time a PC attempted this. Even then the GM would still select the modifiers that apply based solely on his judgement of things like how hungry the monster is -- so I'd rather the GM just avoid wasting time looking up the specific mods for distracting monster X and just pick a number out of his head that he feels is right. That says a lot of time and seems no less arbitrary/judgement based.

If you want a system that requires no GM judgement at all, you could just have the GM roll a d100 and say that the number that comes up is the percent chance of success.  But just about any other system will come down to either GM judgement or a completely arbitrary chance assignment (i.e. no mods) in the game rules (i.e. the judgment of the game designer).

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192Yes.

The question - do the rats go for the bait, or continue munching on the PCs - needs to be one that can be answered within the rules.

On its face, it seems to be an odd corner case. But really, it's not: it's a specific instance of the idea of a PC attempting to redirect a creature's attention to something else. That general concept is something a TTRPG could reasonably cover.

lol, try it. Make this rule. Implement it. Go through all the corner cases. It won't work. It will drag things out considerably and generate occasionally (or frequently) absurd results.

The reason this scenario is perfect for a ruling, or just a GM decision (after all the rats are his NPCs), is that it's a rare action whose efficacy varies enormously by circumstance.

You're trying to be Tarn Adams with pen and paper. It's a fool's errand!

Quote from: RandallS;749215You'd end up with an entire book of nothing but modifiers to the die roll for each and every type of monster.

Gee, you think? That might be why after what you quoted, I pointed out that it was a specific example of a more general principle. We make abstract mechanics to specifically avoid the problem you're mentioning.

Unless you have total recall, there's a certain point at which you have absorbed all the rules you can absorb, and you have to 1) wing it from there or 2) use the book. Sometimes 2) collapses to 1) when there is no good rule.

Unless the whole game is absurdly simple, for instance you roll a d6 and retire with that many millions of GP, The End, you have to make a choice: 1 or 2?

This is not a "1 is better than 2" or "2 is better than 1" issue. It's an opinion question. It's chocolate or vanilla. It's Red Sox or Yankees.

Both ways work.  1 works better for some folks and 2 works better for other folks.

I've spent time on both sides of this conundrum.  My current opinion is 1>2, but that could change.

I don't think you can say one is superior to the other in an absolute sense. It's just preference.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;748828This is really quite disingenuous.

Wait for it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749192Take some of the DM's munchies, and he might kill your character in retribution. Bring some munchies for the DM instead, maybe he's more lenient with you that evening.

Thank you for proving my point.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749205Bring it all the way back to the magic tea party . . .

Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;749235Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, I will admit I used a shitty example for trying to express the notion that GMs are human and have variable responses to situations, whereas rules are static and that no matter how much you cry or plead, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

QuoteYes, it's true. This man has no dick.

This coming from the guy whose contributions lately seem to consist solely of shitting in threads.

Answer the question (or point to where it's been answered before, that's fine as well), or admit you're just a fucking troll at this point. I may be an asshole, but at least I'm trying to engage in discussion.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749238Yes, I will admit I used a shitty example . . .

I was going to say that you can fall on your ass backpedaling like that, but I think it's too late.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749238This coming from the guy whose contributions lately seem to consist solely of shitting in threads.

I have two threads I started on the front page right now, one of which ran to fifty-seven pages with over a score of replies from me, and another that's run to nine pages so far.

You got caught with your pants down around your ankles, so your response is to spew bullshit at me. You are as predictable as a fucking sunrise.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings"

No, no you don't. Making adjudications & rulings - that's what being a DM means.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749229Gee, you think? That might be why after what you quoted, I pointed out that it was a specific example of a more general principle. We make abstract mechanics to specifically avoid the problem you're mentioning.

Abstract mechanics are fine to an extent, but when you don't take into account differences in monsters for abstract mechanics like "do they stop attacking/following for food" you end up with nonsense results on occasion -- like vampires that stop for a pile of cooked meat or, in an example, from a real set of rules, 10 foot gelatinous cubes moved through a 10 foot corridor that the RAW has being knocked prone.  Perhaps you are willing to put up with nonsense edge cases to have nearly perfect consistency from the RAW, but I walk from games with such nonsense unless the GM overrules the nonsense results with rulings.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749238Yes, I will admit I used a shitty example for trying to express the notion that GMs are human and have variable responses to situations, whereas rules are static and that no matter how much you cry or plead, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

Of course, in reality, if you had rules that had 2+2 always equaling 4 and tried to enforce it in your representation of the universe, you would not have fusion (where 2 + 2 equal 4 plus some extra for the energy generated by fusion) and without fusion, your universe would lack stars. Very few abstract rules actually apply in all real would cases and I object to using abstract rules in games unless you allow the GM to overrule the nonsense cases with an on-the-spot ruling.

In your posts in this thread, you sound like you value consistency of absolute rules over the results making sense in "edge cases". I, on the other hand, value the game world being "real" over the "RAW" because I have no interest in playing the rules (or even thinking about the rules more than I have to) when playing. I want to be able to base the vast majority of my decisions on the game world and what's happening in it -- not on the rules. I expect the GM to use the rules, his knowledge of the game world, and common sense to take my stated in game world (not rules) terms actions and tell me what happens. And I expect the GM to modify any results the rules give for my actions that do not make much sense from the point-of-view of the game world. If we were both playing at the same game table, one of us would likely not enjoy the session very much because we seem to be looking for very different things.

Quote from: RandallS;749259Abstract mechanics are fine to an extent, but when you don't take into account differences in monsters for abstract mechanics like "do they stop attacking/following for food" you end up with nonsense results on occasion -- like vampires that stop for a pile of cooked meat or, in an example, from a real set of rules, 10 foot gelatinous cubes moved through a 10 foot corridor that the RAW has being knocked prone.  Perhaps you are willing to put up with nonsense edge cases to have nearly perfect consistency from the RAW, but I walk from games with such nonsense unless the GM overrules the nonsense results with rulings.

This is why I think the GM needs to occassionally step in and adjust for these sorts of things. A universal tripping rule is fine (and simple) but I expect the GM to rule it won't work in cases where it just doesn't make sense.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;749270This is why I think the GM needs to occassionally step in and adjust for these sorts of things. A universal tripping rule is fine (and simple) but I expect the GM to rule it won't work in cases where it just doesn't make sense.

This is pretty much how I view rules. Excellent to have but adjustable by the gm when situations arise the rules don't cover very well.

Quote from: BillThis is pretty much how I view rules. Excellent to have but adjustable by the gm when situations arise the rules don't cover very well.

Absolutely.  In a well-designed and well-GMed rules-heavy games, the wealth of rules aren't a straightjacket.  A big reason they're there is to make the GM's job easier, to take time and energy away from figuring out how to make fair and consistent rulings and concentrate on more interesting and creative things.  When I GM I recognize that sometimes I'll have to make up or adapt rules (and a good system ligh or heavy, enables and facilititates this kind of thing), but I don't want to spend a lot of mental effort making a stable, balanced, and fair rules system up on the fly.  A few open links and print-outs to refer to quickly in play, plus a system with enough rules to cover most things the PCs will likely attempt, do that job for me.

For a long time, I played an extremely rules-light mode of D&D. There wasn't much mechanical structure to the game besides rolling dice to hit and damage, spell descriptions, and abbreviated monster stats. I was very fluent running the game that way and making rulings on everything else that game up. My players were fine with it.

But eventually, I sought out more structured and detailed mechanical support. I simply became tired of bearing all the weight of improvisation, judgement, and adjudication. I wanted the system to carry more of the load to my players were engaged in more than leaning back in chairs and musing about what their character did. A more structured game (while still probably rules-medium for many gamers) has let me devote more of my energy to setting and roleplaying, rather than making improvised decisions and judgments on 90 per cent of PC actions.

Quote from: Haffrung;749338For a long time, I played an extremely rules-light mode of D&D. There wasn't much mechanical structure to the game besides rolling dice to hit and damage, spell descriptions, and abbreviated monster stats. I was very fluent running the game that way and making rulings on everything else that game up. My players were fine with it.

But eventually, I sought out more structured and detailed mechanical support. I simply became tired of bearing all the weight of improvisation, judgement, and adjudication. I wanted the system to carry more of the load to my players were engaged in more than leaning back in chairs and musing about what their character did. A more structured game (while still probably rules-medium for many gamers) has let me devote more of my energy to setting and roleplaying, rather than making improvised decisions and judgments on 90 per cent of PC actions.

That is intriguing, because I am the reverse. When I use a rules lite system, I feel it is easier to relax and just roleplay without thinking about mechanics.

But all that matters is what works for the individual to have fun.

Quote from: Steerpike;749326Absolutely.  In a well-designed and well-GMed rules-heavy games, the wealth of rules aren't a straightjacket.  A big reason they're there is to make the GM's job easier, to take time and energy away from figuring out how to make fair and consistent rulings and concentrate on more interesting and creative things.  When I GM I recognize that sometimes I'll have to make up or adapt rules (and a good system ligh or heavy, enables and facilititates this kind of thing), but I don't want to spend a lot of mental effort making a stable, balanced, and fair rules system up on the fly.  A few open links and print-outs to refer to quickly in play, plus a system with enough rules to cover most things the PCs will likely attempt, do that job for me.

All true, and in this way rules also serve better in games where you want the system to either highlight what makes the setting/game different, or when the GM wants the rules to cover a part of that game that you expect to be used a lot, like sanity rules for Lovecraftian game, or witchcraft rules in a game where reagents have a great effect on the spells, or rules for the growth of a stronghold where the players are expected to settle into that role eventually.

I personally feel that "rules heavy" and "well designed" is an oxymoron.

What other product prides itself on having a bulky, complex, reference required interface?

Quote from: Dunnagin;749359I personally feel that "rules heavy" and "well designed" is an oxymoron.

What other product prides itself on having a bulky, complex, reference required interface?

Microsoft Access

Rules are simple things, but have all but ceased to exist for the purpose they should be used for.

For most gamers, they have only two purposes these days-

1. Something to ignore and overrule so that the GM and players feel empowered, creative, and lords of all that they desire... and thus BA.

2. Yardsticks by which one can make their character BA, and thus somehow reach the conclusion that in turn it makes the player... BA.

Both uses are for immature minds that should have learned better from their cop and robbers days, except they likely weren't social enough to actually have played those games and thus never learn to outgrow them. Sadly these two mindsets control modern game design and game design discussion. They are overwhelmingly present in this thread from the straw-man topic to far too many of the replies.

What's almost funny about this is that those two mindsets both want the same thing but completely hate how the other goes about doing that. So we gets threads like this where they whine at each other drowning out any reasonable voices that might happen by.

Meanwhile the original and best purpose for rules in gaming is ignored and claimed to be boring at best and impossible at worst. The current crop of designers and publishers were born from this mess, and bring all its dysfunction to every new game published whatever its source.

It's enough to ruin my otherwise sunny mood.

This has certainly ventured into some highly spherical cow territory.

However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

Excluded middle.

Not to mention, I personally would talk to anyone who proposes a game I'm interested in and ask questions about it. Then I'd have a good idea whether I want to play the game, or not. Also, as a DM, I have a session zero for new games, discuss some things like the campaign's nature, the setting, what characters' people want to play, etc, before the game starts.

Communication. What a beautiful thing.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398This has certainly ventured into some highly spherical cow territory.

However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

No one is advocating doing this, it is a false example... whereas the examples of the more overburdened portions of current rules sets are based quotes from those rules.

No one advocating "rules light" here has said they would go so far as to negate a character sheet.

You might as well say... "if you make a character, then show up to the game, and the DM beats you round the head with a pipe... are you still playing D&D? How do you enjoy you're rules light now!"

It's an inconsequential arguement.

Overly verbose rules for "jumping" is 3.5 if a reference-able example... on the other hand.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

So he's not using the in-world stuff on the sheet, like the armour I'm wearing or the spells in my head?

I guess for it to be AD&D I'd expect him to use the above in-world stuff, plus hit points as a measure of attrition. If I have STR DEX etc on my sheet I'd expect that to have some influence on the GM's description.

I guess I'm ok with it being diceless, but if I have a character sheet with stuff on it like stats, spells, equipment, hit points, I expect that to be used. Doesn't have to be used RAW, though. But I expect to get to play the character on the sheet, not a completely different character.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings" (because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

It's my world.  Nobody but me knows how it works.  I jot down notes on certain things I think are important enough to recur, or use rules other people have written if they are close enough to something I like.

The rules are merely supports for me to adjudicate everything that happens on my world.  The players who appeal to authority must appeal to me, not some set of words on paper.

Oddly, in 42 years I've never failed to have more prospective players than I can accommodate.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;749235Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.

You can listen to Mister Pecker, or you can listen to me.

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.

Quote from: One Horse Town;749191I think that the actual-dick DMs and actual-dick players spoken about on internet gaming forums are mainly hypothetical outside of the odd convention game...

Oh do I wish that were true.

Im probably not the only one whos had games with either dick DMs or had to DM to dick players.

Oddly I've never had a DM or player named Dick yet.

What the net does though is it magnifies these cases and worse, it gives a soapbox for those who were totally freaked out by the experience and are now the equivalent of Prohibitionists. The bad DM touched me here, ergo all DMs are bad and must be curbed lest they touch some other innocent Player.

So some DM makes a snap ruling for jumping in session A using DEX check, and in the next case has a percentile roll. This is evil and must be stopped before it damages the players fragile snowflake. So lets chain down the DM with more and more rules so the players can say "look here it says this right here!" and then bitch when the DM does the same to them.
And then flip that around for the DM vs player side.

And then come at it from the other side of the fence where too many rules are seen as a poison to gameplay.

There just isnt any solution because every table plays different and whats fine over there would freak you out over here. And someone somewhere HAS had a bad experience with rules heavy, rules light, etc.

Play the game and try to remember it IS a game meant to be worked out at the table as needed. A level of freedom few other game types enjoy.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings" (because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

Whether or not the DM is a smart guy or not should not factor into this discussion. If there is a gap in the rules, obviously it falls to the DM to adjudicate. I am saying that my preference is that those gaps be few and far between, or if they are more common, have those gaps coverable by extension of the rules (which would, in essence, be a "ruling" by the DM).

Different approaches.

AD&D for example covers the holes in the rules with stat checks where possible. And suggests to do so in the DMG even.

Some will want harder coded solutions, some will be fine with that or whatever else the DM thinks up. Or the player thinks up because this is not exactly limited to the DM's imagination only.

For you. Coming up with a rule on the fly is a hassle. You arent alone in that.
For me. Coming up with a rule on the fly is easy. I am not alone in that.

I happen to like having lots of rules if only because I can look at how the designer thinks so-n-so should be done and from there I can judge if its useful to me or not. I also like rules light games.

And even when the designer provides alot of rules. There is no guarantee the GM wont jettison something and replace it with something THEY think is better. D&D is the posterchild for that.

Quote from: Omega;749478Different approaches.

AD&D for example covers the holes in the rules with stat checks where possible. And suggests to do so in the DMG even.

Some will want harder coded solutions, some will be fine with that or whatever else the DM thinks up. Or the player thinks up because this is not exactly limited to the DM's imagination only.

For you. Coming up with a rule on the fly is a hassle. You arent alone in that.
For me. Coming up with a rule on the fly is easy. I am not alone in that.

I happen to like having lots of rules if only because I can look at how the designer thinks so-n-so should be done and from there I can judge if its useful to me or not. I also like rules light games.

And even when the designer provides alot of rules. There is no guarantee the GM wont jettison something and replace it with something THEY think is better. D&D is the posterchild for that.

It's too bad that the Like feature isn't enabled on this forum.  I'd Like the fuck out of this one.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

1: No. If its purely freeform or storytelling then its stopped being AD&D.
2: Yes. It is still a game of sorts.
3: Yes. Bad gameplay is irrelevant to the playstyle. A bad DM or player is not the game.
4: 50/50. The game is billed as a freeform so it would not feel not like a freeform. It is still a game of sorts. Id give it a whirl.

And I'll add onto that question.
What if its the above stated freeform. But set in Greyhawk for example. Is it AD&D then?
Personal answer is. Still no.

Possibly a question worth its own thread. What is your threshold where changes to a game make it no longer the origin game? How much is too much? How little is too little?

Quote from: gleichman;749468Browsing threads like this is worst than listening to blind men talking about elephants. It's painful.

An elephant is very like a long, tight, slimy tunnel!

Quote from: David Johansen;749498An elephant is very like a long, tight, slimy tunnel!

An elephant is warm and mushy!

Quote from: gleichman;749468And frankly I don't think *anyone* on this site or most others of its nature has been exposed to all of them.

So what is this site that the enlightened inhabit?

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

The one that Gleichman plays of course.

Quote from: Old Geezer;749500An elephant is warm and mushy!

No, an elephant looks like warm echoes.

Quote from: aspiringlich;749183Crude and disgusting imagery aside ... do you not realize that you do exactly the same thing when you want the rulebook to tell you what you can and can't do? You simply substitute the authority of the game designers for the authority of the DM, but it's no less an appeal to someone else's authority. Give up on your pretense at autonomy as a player: whether's it's Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet, or the DM at your table, you're someone else's bitch.

What?  So?  Yes every rule-set has a box for people to play in.  Congratulations you figured something out.:cheerleader:
Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

Quote from: robiswrong;749198And the general form of the rules in a rules light game is something like this:

1) PC declares action
2) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
3) PC decides to continue or not.

I would say it's
1) GM describes 'scene'
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

To me the difference is(from another thread)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223I like many things about d20 system-based games, but I get an ear bleed when I look at the skill sections. Shit like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/climb.html#_climb

1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

or sense we have the DC and mods known to everyone;
1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
4) PC declares action to continue or not. Because they know it's a DC 15 by the description.


For me, it's the 20 questions that bothers me.  It slows down play and all to often you see the 'shit didn't think of that' look from the DM when a certain question is asked.  Yes, I know every Dm here has never done that :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

That's nice.

Hey, this Monty Cook guy has some interesting thoughts on D&D:
http://www.montecook.com/celebrating-40-years-of-dd/

This part is enlightening:

OD&D showcases what I really love about the game, and makes it all the more clear that all the other stuff–skill systems, complex monster designs, a vast array of character options and complex combat rules, etc.–is very much secondary. That stuff, which we so often refer to as "crunch," is actually "fluff." It's cool, it's fun, it's interesting, but it's also ultimately unnecessary.

It's almost like he realized some weaknesses in modern, overly complex, design.

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

This is actually the best argument you've given.  If you have an issue with the judgement of a referee *as a thing*, then you do, and the more rules, the better.  Of course, that's utterly *subjective*.

Ultimately, the GM sets the difficulty of climbing a wall.  Whether he does it by saying "it's 15", or does it by saying all the modifiers, he's still doing it.

The only way that's not true is if you're asking about the modifiers indirectly, and want to not tip off the GM as to what you're thinking of doing.  To me, that's indicative of dysfunctional play.

Quote from: Sommerjon;7503471) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

or sense we have the DC and mods known to everyone;
1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
4) PC declares action to continue or not. Because they know it's a DC 15 by the description.

So, here's the thing.  In the second case, the following has to happen for the player to know the DC:

1) The GM has to declare all the bits that modify the base DC for any possible action for all visible elements in the 'scene'.
2) The GM must be limited to elements that have codified modifiers
3) The player must either have memorized, or look up the appropriate modifiers and calculate them together.
4) Any action outside of the well-known/predetermined actions *still* requires GM adjudication.

It's the difference between "You enter a rough, stone room with a well in the middle of it.  You see a grate set into the ceiling" and "You enter a room.  The walls appear to be rough stone without significant cracks made of sandstone.  The well in the center of the room is smooth marble with a light level of moisture and moss.  There is a grate in the ceiling that appears to be made of cast iron, and has light rusting on it."

It's really not a matter at this point of whether the modifiers are codified in advance or not.  It's a matter of how much info-dump occurs in the initial description.  Using Fate, I could just as easily say "The walls are rough stone, it would probably be climbable by an Average climber."

Realistically, in more rules-light games I've run, steps 2-4 kind of get compressed.  "How difficult would it be to climb the wall?"  "Eh, it's a pretty rough wall, but no major cracks or anything.  It doesn't look any harder than Average".  It helps if you trust the GM to just ask the question directly, rather than trying to ask all of the ancillary questions that lead to the difficulty.  I can understand wanting to do that if you're afraid the GM will put the kibosh on any plan the "don't like" by using arbitrarily high DCs, but again, that's a "dick GM" issue more than anything.

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347For me, it's the 20 questions that bothers me.  It slows down play and all to often you see the 'shit didn't think of that' look from the DM when a certain question is asked.  Yes, I know every Dm here has never done that :rolleyes:

Every GM (I find it interesting that you always use the DM term) gets the "shit didn't think of that" look on occasion.  And guess what, those looks tend to occur when players think of crap outside of the usual actions.

As far as 20 questions goes, as I've said, that's really not a rules-light or rules-heavy thing.  It's more a matter of how much detail is given in the first info-dump.  You prefer more detail in the first info-dump, and that's fine.

As an example, I could just describe the walls as "stone", and leave players to query what kind of stone, roughness, etc., even in a rules-heavy game.

"You enter a room.  There's a well on the floor and a grate up near the ceiling"
"What are the walls made of?"
"Stone."
"Rough or smooth?"
"Fairly rough."
"Does it have any significant cracks or handholds?"
"Nope."

And now you're still assuming the GM has given enough info to accurately determine the DC, or there's going to be an argument regarding the calculated DC.

"How can it be DC 18?  The modifiers only add to 15!"
"You didn't ask if there was any plant growth.  There's slick moss on the wall."

The kind of fundamental problem in this case is the GM being a dick and not giving sufficient information to the players.  And the ultimate "sufficient information" is the difficulty of whatever it is they're trying to do.

And actions outside of the predicted actions will still require questions.  "Can I get a grappling hook on the grate and pull it down?" or, for the indirect approach "How big are the holes in the grate?"

(BTW, I'm really not arguing against rules-heavy games.  They're fine.  There's a number of them I like.  I just don't buy that they 'solve' problems around areas like communication.)

Yeah, I need to Agree here about the 20 questions.  Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't, but it shows up at all levels, rules heavy or light.  ANd a GM has to be pretty ready and willing.  Part of the job.

"Shit I didn't think of that" is WHY I referee.

If the day ever comes when I expect everything my players do, I'm getting new players.  If the day ever comes when nothing any players ever does surprises me, I'm quitting this hobby for good.

Making shit up is the fun part of this stupidass hobby, and having to do so at a moment's notice is the most fun part of making shit up.  It's like having to respond to your opponents' moves on a wargame table, but even more challenging!

I've felt D&D in particular needed to stay simple for years.  It's an abstract, fast playing game that doesn't benefit from the addition of tons of junk.  There's lots of robust, well designed systems that take the burden of detail freak play but from the moment you've got escalating hit points and armor making you harder to hit, efforts to impose detailed realism become laughable.

Quote from: robiswrong;750455This is actually the best argument you've given.  If you have an issue with the judgement of a referee *as a thing*, then you do, and the more rules, the better.  Of course, that's utterly *subjective*.

Well duh.

It's all personal preference.