Quote from: tuypo1;816999sure you can make things up as you go but its much better when its already an existing rule

Quote from: nDervish;817009How so?  If that were true, then computer "RPGs" would be definitively superior to tabletop, since they only allow you to do things for which there's already an existing rule.

Quote from: Phillip;817089Wrong. Why? Because some people want both more guidelines AND freedom.

That still doesn't answer the question I was getting at:  In what way is it "much better" to have an existing rule than rely on a GM ruling?

You don't even contradict me - if people want both more guidelines (existing rules) and freedom (ability to make things up as you go), then that implies that existing rules are not inherently "much better".

Quote from: Omega;817029Better in what way?

All having a rule for lighting a hay bale on fire to distract the guards does is add more and more clutterd rules for things that should be as simple as the DM thinking it through and/or making a wisdom check for example.

What good does having a rule for jumping on a table serve?

you dont need a rule for jumping on a table when there are already rules for jumping, rules for balancing and rules for fire you dont need lots of rules you need the building blocks to make complex rules in a way

Quote from: nDervish;817195That still doesn't answer the question I was getting at:  In what way is it "much better" to have an existing rule than rely on a GM ruling?

You don't even contradict me - if people want both more guidelines (existing rules) and freedom (ability to make things up as you go), then that implies that existing rules are not inherently "much better".

you make up rules when there is nothing existing but existing rules are preferable

Quote from: Phillip;817092temptation to absurdly fallacious argument

sounds a lot like fantasy adventures to adult lechery

Quote from: tuypo1;817197you make up rules when there is nothing existing but existing rules are preferable

Why?

Quote from: Will;817217Why?

Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

It's no big deal if you have your own gaming group with one DM, you get that peeps vision.  However if you have multiple groups with multiple DMs then you open the door to multiple visions of the same action.

I think the game should tell me how failure and success work in general. Then maybe toss in some ideas on how to handle "side cases". In general. Generically. Then you have the skills section. It outlines some example rulings with suggestions. Not rules. Just how you might do it. Same in the "adventuring" section.

You would have the best of both worlds. Just state at the beginning "the GM decides the outcome. The suggestions are here to help the GM make rulings." Then outline that the players play the characters. Don't think in terms of rules, think in terms of "what do I want to do". The GM should be encouraged to say "roll vs. something" and not "no" at every turn.

You would encourage the players to be players and the GMs to be GMs and your game would offer tools to help both do what they are supposed to be doing.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817239Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

It's no big deal if you have your own gaming group with one DM, you get that peeps vision.  However if you have multiple groups with multiple DMs then you open the door to multiple visions of the same action.

Consistency is welcomed so long as that consistency applies to the imagined game world. A given thing should work more or less the same given identical circumstances.

A hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

Quote from: trechriron;817241You would have the best of both worlds. Just state at the beginning "the GM decides the outcome. The suggestions are here to help the GM make rulings." Then outline that the players play the characters. Don't think in terms of rules, think in terms of "what do I want to do". The GM should be encouraged to say "roll vs. something" and not "no" at every turn.

You would encourage the players to be players and the GMs to be GMs and your game would offer tools to help both do what they are supposed to be doing.

This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;817244Consistency is welcomed so long as that consistency applies to the imagined game world. A given thing should work more or less the same given identical circumstances.

That's what people are finding out to not be true.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;817244A hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

That just defined every RPG out there.  Good Job!

Those corner cases may suffer, but it's that whole greater good thing in action.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?
...

Ummmmmm. So maybe I pointed at the wrong spot on the map...  I will reword for clarity...

In the book, you have a generic rule like "roll 3d6, a result under 6 is a critical success, a result under 12 is a success. A result over 12 is a failure and a result over 16 is a critical failure". Then you go on to demonstrate how to take this generic rule and make rulings. You outline examples for jumping, lifting, hiking, fighting, etc.

Before the go into "ruling examples" you explain a basic principle. "in this game, you tell the GM what you are doing. Something like - I jump across the pit! Then the GM decides how that's going to work using our generic rule. So he says - make a dexterity check, the pit is large, so you have a +3. You roll 3d6+3. You score a 17 - critical failure! The GM will then adjudicates the results, explaining what happens, probably falling into the pit."

When we talk about "rulings not rules" I think there is a way to approach this that is clearer upfront. You give the general idea, then plenty of ruling examples BUT those examples are NOT rules. They are examples. So you inform everyone up front that the GM decides the outcome. The outcome is "you hit, or you succeeded and grappled the snake-wolf, or you critically failed dropping your sword through your foot pinning you to the cave floor".

This is how RPGs work anyways (as far as I'm concerned). We could do better explicitly working that into the text, helping GMs with rulings, and helping manage player's expectations. The focus would be on playing, not on maximizing probability or limiting GM creativity by explicit procedures, formulas or mechanics.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817239Consistency.

You see it here when an actual play example pops up here every blue moon.  You end up with 30 different answers on how to adjudicate the action.

Except that even with a rule in place. Two people may read it TOTALLY differently and both think it very clearly states what they believe it to be because of how they read the rule.

Quote from: Omega;817340Except that even with a rule in place. Two people may read it TOTALLY differently and both think it very clearly states what they believe it to be because of how they read the rule.

And some find that infinitely better then having one person who decides.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817341And some find that infinitely better then having one person who decides.

Translation: Nothing gets actually played because every 5 steps an argument breaks out over some wording of the rules and how player A reads it and how player B reads it.

That is the DMs job.

Or worse yet, the players keep stopping the game to bitchfest with the DM.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256This is where players start scratching their heads a bit.
The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome?  Am I actually playing the character or am I just suggesting actions for the Gm to decide if he likes it or not?

Depends on the system.  In Amber Diceless, yes, that's exactly how it works.  (Which is why I almost immediately quit running Amber - as a GM, I don't want to have to make those decisions without getting help from my dice.)

But you seem to be assuming a capricious (or perhaps even malicious?) GM who will rule based on the whim of the moment.  Were that the case, I would agree with you, but it's not something I've ever seen myself.  When I GM, I do my best to assess "if this situation were real, what things would factor into the outcome and how should I best resolve the interaction of those factors?", which allows players to make their own reasonable assessment of what's likely to result, regardless of whether they know the rules or not and regardless of whether applicable rules even exist or not.

And here's the real kicker:  It's the exact same thought process regardless of whether I end up applying existing, codified rules or making up something new on the fly.

If I were to be capricious or malicious, I could do so just as effectively regardless of the rules (or lack of them) in place, simply by choosing which rules to favor and which to neglect or, if a player were to call me on a neglected rule, by setting up the situation so that the rule I want to ignore doesn't apply.

"The players play the character, but the GM decides the outcome" (or at least the GM decides how to determine the outcome) is, ultimately, the way that every remotely-traditional RPG works.  (I can't actually think of any RPGs which don't work that way, but I'm open to the possibility that some indie title or other has discarded all semblance of GM authority over the system or setting.)

Quote from: ExploderwizardA hard coded rule applied for the sake of rules consistency alone even though the circumstances in the game world do not support it is idiocy in action.

Quote from: Sommerjon;817256That just defined every RPG out there. Good Job!

Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

Quote from: nDervish;817373Doesn't define the RPGs I run.  I only apply hard-coded rules when the circumstances in the game world support their application.  If the rule doesn't fit with the in-game situation, I'll gladly ignore that rule, mechanical consistency be damned.  My ultimate loyalty is to the setting, not the system.

DING!