D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

I think I've established that I don't see these rules as forcing PC behavior. For me, they move play along. I have a low threshold for participating in or observing RPed arguments where neither party has a clear end-game and/or is willing to back down from their assumptions, whether it's GM-player or player-player.

Ah. I'm fine with seeing where the discussion goes because that feels more true to life.

Case in point: every previous post.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the reasons for rulings over rules is so that flair can be considered by the gm in the rules implementation. The idea is if the player is describing their character as doing more than simply swinging a sword, it may warrant a modified approach and a mechanical resolution that offers more specified outcomes than the system provides

Of course my reaction to that is "Have a system that provides more." I've never considered GM intervention a good substitute for rules that are dull tactically.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

These sort of restrictions would be immediately flagged as not making any sense in relation to the logic of the setting by my players (and me as well, obviously). I don't see any group I've played who would be ok with PC action being constrained in this way. Since I know there are serious constraints on the GM as well in this game, the whole thing feels like a solid no-go from my perspective.

I suspect that Let it Ride would probably be less objectionable in play than I may be making it sound. It goes both ways -- so a successful sneak attempt is good for an entire scene, and the GM can't ask for multiple rolls to go down the hall, out the door, past the guards, and into the pantry for lunch. One roll covers all of it.

 

[TwoSix]

Ah. I'm fine with seeing where the discussion goes because that feels more true to life.

Case in point: every previous post.

I can also the point that this thread is about 4,000 posts too long and we should have moved on a long time ago.

Emulating real life is often not desirable.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Ah. I'm fine with seeing where the discussion goes because that feels more true to life.

Case in point: every previous post.

And I'm trying to get away from that. I don't need things to feel more like real life: I live in fear of having a game veer towards this-dungeon-crawl-could've-been-an-email.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can also the point that this thread is about 4,000 posts too long and we should have moved on a long time ago.

Emulating real life is often not desirable.

I suspect you and I have a vast difference of opinion on exactly how often it's not desirable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I'm trying to get away from that. I don't need things to feel more like real life: I live in fear of having a game veer towards this-dungeon-crawl-could've-been-an-email.

Well, that makes sense. I disagree with Narrativist thinking on almost every level.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Of course my reaction to that is "Have a system that provides more." I've never considered GM intervention a good substitute for rules that are dull tactically.

I enjoy plenty of higher crunch games. I think systems that have more are their own thing, but they don't capture what a rulings based approach captures (and not saying they are worse, but your tactics are going through the system, the point of rulings like this is for what the player is trying to do in that moment specifically to guide the rules). These are just two different experiences and approaches. I don't think one is better or worse. There is value to tactical crunch, but there is also value to either having open spaces in a game for GM interpretation or approaching a system with that spirit

 

[Thomas Shey]

I enjoy plenty of higher crunch games. I think systems that have more are their own thing, but they don't capture what a rulings based approach captures (and not saying they are worse, but your tactics are going through the system, the point of rulings like this is for what the player is trying to do in that moment specifically to guide the rules). These are just two different experiences and approaches. I don't think one is better or worse. There is value to tactical crunch, but there is also value to either having open spaces in a game for GM interpretation or approaching a system with that spirit

I respect your opinion, but I've never seen a rulings based approach here that I actually thought paid for its downsides with its upsides.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Well, that makes sense. I disagree with Narrativist thinking on almost every level.

BW is, IMO, as Gamist as it is Narrativist in play. But I'm skeptical of the Big Model as a model. I think there's useful stuff in the details, and I like some of it conceptually, but the taxonomy it insists on is probably unhelpful.