FireLance said:
Unless the real reason why some DMs don't like rules-heavy systems is the same as why some autocratic regimes restrict their citizens' access to information about other countries: so that the players never find out that other DMs might run games in a way they might enjoy more.
Except that autocratic regimes create strict rules for everything inside an outside the home.
I can safely say that I saw a complete change in player mentality when we switched from 2e to 3e and it got worse when 3.5 came out. Heck, I had to create a list of house rules that everyone would agree on just to play the game and that includes a lot of various "interpretations."
In any event, excessive rules do not lead to a better game. For every judgement call I made in 2e, I have to make the same calls in 3e. The only difference is that I now have to interpret the rules that exist instead of saying yes or no. IME, rules arguments are common in 3e and only get worse as the players grow to master the rules.
Why? Because even a player who has mastered the rules cannot remember every rule. The memory is fallable, so you may remember the rule incorrectly. That seems to happen an excessive amount in game. Even when I had a true master of the rules in my game, he still made mistakes. They tended to be minor, but even a minor mistake in 3e can have a HUGE impact on the game.
I am all for having a good set of rules that includes some protections for the players, but attempting to intuit every little thing that may happen in a game is maddness. It defeats the purpose of even having a game based on imagination.
How many times have you looked at a rule that you had been using to find that you had been using it incorrectly? It has happened in my game more than a few times. And I'll bet that I am not alone.
What point is there in having a game that cannot be truly mastered?