Quote from: The Traveller;689527Some people like a bit of consistency when they play games.

And some don't get their peeners in a knot if things aren't exactly the same for every imagined situation.

"Fuck it, close enough" is king at my table.  None of us can remember how the fuck we resolved it last time anyway.

Quote from: apparition13;689630You're assuming properly constructed rules; I'm not.

Ah. Well, in that case I'm assuming all rulings suck. Since all rulings suck, one is forced to wonder why you're trying to support rulings. They suck, after all.

Lemme know if you change your mind and decide that you want to have an intellectually honest conversation.

Quote from: apparition13;689630I have no problem with uncertainty, but given the trade-off, I am more concerned with consistency in terms of setting and tone than with consistency in process.

I like uncertainty, that's why we roll dice. However if I do the same thing twice I'd expect if not the exact same results at least the same process to be used, and I don't view that as being in any way unreasonable. In fact I'm surprised that anyone might think otherwise.

Unless you're preordaining the end you want to see and then fudging like Santa Claus at Christmas time, which is burying the needle at both the railroad and shared narrative game ends of the meter.

Quote from: apparition13;689630It's easier to ignore a rule that isn't there, because it isn't there in the first place. Existing rules can have weird effects on the rest of the system when removed or hacked.

That's why I made a difference between broad and heavy. A heavy setting is like the more recent iterations of D&D, where you can't change one thing without a half dozen other side effects. D&D isn't houserule friendly except on a most superficial level, and this is another reason I like realism in fact - you aren't using opaque representative rolls like save vs poison to indicate whether or not you survived a fall off a cliff, you're just applying damage.

A broad, transparent system is one where there isn't a long chain of interlocking dependencies and bits can be pulled out and replaced easily because it's not very deep.

An example is what I use regularly: the basis of it is similar to CP2020, skill (1-10), plus stat (1-10) plus d10, roll over a target number (1-30). Right there, that sentence is as complete a system as an experienced GM needs, using the methods you describe. Should a cop have the shooting skill and a gun? Yes, roll to shoot the robber, beat a 20 with your skill+stat of 14. Boom, and done. You can make up any situation and deal with it using just that mechanic. It's a one-sentence system.

I've broadened it significantly though by adding a slew of skills and tactical options in combat, rules for equipment and so on. But there's nothing stopping you from taking out any part of it without breaking the rest, because it's a well designed modular system, while the options allow phenomenally complex and unpredictable interactions between the independent parts. The core mechanic can easily take up any shortfall in the tools made available.

Quote from: apparition13;689630They are also taking up cognitive space, which makes defaulting to them easy, even when they don't really apply, and working around them harder.

Why would you default to them if they don't really apply any more than you would in a lighter system? It's not as though there are a wall of rules hedging you in, a gravity well of strictures pulling at your neurons. It's better to see them as tools you can pick up and use or not, at least in a well designed game.

Quote from: apparition13;689630DCC has some interesting ideas, but a separate effect table for every damn spell means I will never use it because that's just too much crap, and crap that's too specific.

...which is exactly what I've been saying about DW, AW, etc. One table per skill/spell clogs up the works and you'll spend half the night looking stuff up.

Quote from: apparition13;689630I'd much rather use Over the Edge, which is barely a rules system, and add bits as I go, than have to hack out pieces of rules that are getting in my the way of my improvisation.

As I said, it sounds like you'd have as much fun just having a conversation where everyone else has to listen to you, peppered with the occasional dice roll.

Quote from: Old Geezer;689641None of us can remember how the fuck we resolved it last time anyway.

That's generally why we write down houserules or have a book of rules to refer to.

It's like having a spare brain!

Quote from: The TravellerI like uncertainty, that's why we roll dice. However if I do the same thing twice I'd expect if not the exact same results at least the same process to be used, and I don't view that as being in any way unreasonable. In fact I'm surprised that anyone might think otherwise.

When you're making a decision about which of several actions you might take, one of the things you do (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) is specify your criteria. Justin Alexander specifies three: effective, consistent, and flexible. This may also include ranking your criteria, since sometimes you are faced with a tradeoff because your criteria can be incompatible in some situations. In those situations I rank flexibility and consistency of setting over consistency of process. I'm surprised you're surprised people have different preferences.

QuoteUnless you're preordaining the end you want to see and then fudging like Santa Claus at Christmas time, which is burying the needle at both the railroad and shared narrative game ends of the meter.

Consistency of setting (no, you can't play a warforged in Greyhawk, I don't care that they are in the PH) =/= railroad or storygaming. Neither does giving a +2 to hit for shooting a bow from ambush one time and giving an bonus die (advantage die in 5 parlance) the next. All you're doing is adjusting the resolution system to fit the situation at hand, not preordaining outcomes to preserve a railroad or to maximize drama.

QuoteThat's why I made a difference between broad and heavy. A heavy setting is like the more recent iterations of D&D, where you can't change one thing without a half dozen other side effects. D&D isn't houserule friendly except on a most superficial level, and this is another reason I like realism in fact - you aren't using opaque representative rolls like save vs poison to indicate whether or not you survived a fall off a cliff, you're just applying damage.

Re. bold: did you mean system or setting?

QuoteA broad, transparent system is one where there isn't a long chain of interlocking dependencies and bits can be pulled out and replaced easily because it's not very deep.

Easily hackable = good in my book.

QuoteAn example is what I use regularly: the basis of it is similar to CP2020, skill (1-10), plus stat (1-10) plus d10, roll over a target number (1-30). Right there, that sentence is as complete a system as an experienced GM needs, using the methods you describe. Should a cop have the shooting skill and a gun? Yes, roll to shoot the robber, beat a 20 with your skill+stat of 14. Boom, and done. You can make up any situation and deal with it using just that mechanic. It's a one-sentence system.

Simple, flexible, and it doesn't specify endless situational modifiers so I could easily wing it. Works for me. Bear in mind though, that even with this there might be situations where I would rule that skill or attribute or both might not apply, and adjust the dice rolled accordingly.

QuoteI've broadened it significantly though by adding a slew of skills and tactical options in combat, rules for equipment and so on. But there's nothing stopping you from taking out any part of it without breaking the rest, because it's a well designed modular system, while the options allow phenomenally complex and unpredictable interactions between the independent parts. The core mechanic can easily take up any shortfall in the tools made available.

Depending on what and how much you've added, it could be too much or just right. I'd have to see it first. In any case, if I thought the additions were generating something I didn't think made sense, I'd ignore those additions in that situation and wing it.

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by apparition13  
They are also taking up cognitive space, which makes defaulting to them easy, even when they don't really apply, and working around them harder.

QuoteWhy would you default to them if they don't really apply any more than you would in a lighter system? It's not as though there are a wall of rules hedging you in, a gravity well of strictures pulling at your neurons.

Well, there kind of is. The brain uses a lot of energy (~30% of your calories), and higher order reasoning increases this cost. If your brain can use a shortcut (like a heuristic) to avoid that increased cost, it will. The status quo bias is one such heuristic. It's why the organ donation rate in the U.S. is so much lower than in Europe, because in the U.S. it's opt in (the status quo is not to be a donor) while in Europe it's opt out (the status quo is to be a donor).

So if there is an existing rule, I first have to overcome my status quo bias to just go with what's already there, then figure out an alternative. That's a more difficult cognitive task than just figuring out an alternative.

QuoteIt's better to see them as tools you can pick up and use or not, at least in a well designed game.

Not all games are "well designed", and since different people have different criteria and different rankings of criteria people won't agree on which games qualify as "well designed" and which don't.  

QuoteQuote:

QuoteOriginally Posted by apparition13  
DCC has some interesting ideas, but a separate effect table for every damn spell means I will never use it because that's just too much crap, and crap that's too specific.

...which is exactly what I've been saying about DW, AW, etc. One table per skill/spell clogs up the works and you'll spend half the night looking stuff up.

Look, agreement.

Quote

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by apparition13  
I'd much rather use Over the Edge, which is barely a rules system, and add bits as I go, than have to hack out pieces of rules that are getting in my the way of my improvisation.

As I said, it sounds like you'd have as much fun just having a conversation where everyone else has to listen to you, peppered with the occasional dice roll.

No no no no no. Improvisation means I react to them, and vice versa. If there is no give and take there is no fun. The more they improvise, the more reasons I have to do the same. The system is the medium in (and with) which we play.

Quote

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by Old Geezer  
None of us can remember how the fuck we resolved it last time anyway.

That's generally why we write down houserules or have a book of rules to refer to.

It's like having a spare brain!

Yes, but then you have to record things, organize your records so they are more easily searched, look them up during play, figure out whether or not they apply to this situation which may be slightly different from that situation, etc. Winging it is both easier and way, way, faster. You don't have to stop the game to find a rule, you just ease off the gas for a couple of seconds to assess the situation and then "vroom". There's usually no need to even tap the brake.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;689680Ah. Well, in that case I'm assuming all rulings suck. Since all rulings suck, one is forced to wonder why you're trying to support rulings. They suck, after all.

Lemme know if you change your mind and decide that you want to have an intellectually honest conversation.

You said:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;689571Properly constructed rules enable effective, consistent, and flexible rulings.

I replied:

Quote from: apparition13;689630You're assuming properly constructed rules; I'm not.

by which I meant not all rules are properly constructed. I think we can agree that not every RPG ever has had properly constructed rules. By specifying "properly constructed" you are separating out "improperly constructed", but such games exist and need to be part of the discussion. You also specify three criteria. Given that how we weight those criteria differs, since you emphasize consistency and I flexibility, we are unlikely to agree on whether or not a given game is properly constructed.

QuoteLemme know if you change your mind and decide that you want to have an intellectually honest conversation.

I not only responded in detail to your writing, I also read both links you provided and responded to in detail to them. I can't help but notice that you ignored all of that and instead focused your attention on some offense you took at a sentence that, when isolated from the rest of the post, might be a bit ambiguous.

"The onus is on the poster to be clear" is quite literally an impossible standard; let's not drag that rpg.net b.s. into here. Better to read generously, respond to the substance of the content, and ask for clarification if something seems dodgy. Like I did with The Traveller when I bolded "setting" in post 243. He wrote setting, I was all prepared to respond to setting, but the rest of the post seemed to be talking about system, so my guess is he meant system but mis-typed. But since I wasn't positive which he meant, I asked.

Quote from: The Traveller;689696That's generally why we write down houserules or have a book of rules to refer to.

It's like having a spare brain!

That would require more fucks to be given than we have.

Also, I run OD&D.  For any non combat action, "roll 2d6 and fake it, high is good" is good enough.