Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not saying that it would work for you this way, but in my case, my path to becoming a better DM in the past 5 years has been going the OPPOSITE way -- that is, if the player has a creative idea for an action, say "yes" more often than "no," and I actually got this from Piratecat -- both observing him, and speaking with people who have played with him. I try to map the rules to a situation first, but if the rules don't exactly apply, I'll try to house-rule it to accomodate and at least give them a chance for doing so.

I agree with you, I have DMed this way in the past. I think I'm just sick of the number of arguements it caused when it DIDN'T work. My friends are the type to study the whole rule book, they know all their options.

Back in 2nd edition AD&D, I'd come up with a house rule for something not covered by the rules and suddenly have 3 players who would all start arguing about how my rule wasn't the correct one or that it wasn't realistic enough or it was too hard. I'm sure sure some of my own bias came through a couple of times. I made things hard to do that I didn't want people to do. This was in my early DMing days. But, still, everytime I was forced to come up with a rule it created no end to the arguing. I was forced to defend my reasoning at every turn. That's what you get in a group of people who DM their own games. They all think they know how to DM better than you. It also normally ended with me putting my foot down and at least one player having no fun for the rest of the session because he was ruled against. Even had one player leave my table entirely.

So, I find, despite our games being slightly more restrictive, they flow smoothly than they did previously. We still discuss it when a rule comes up that someone didn't know, but the discussion is quicker. It is now simply "It's in the rules." "Really? I didn't know I couldn't do that." "Well, you can't. Choose something else." Normally followed by them choosing something else, then during everyone else's turn looking up the rules to make sure I wasn't misremembering. Sometimes I did, so we back up to their turn and let them do what they wanted to.

Although not perfect, it is better than the bad feelings we left the table with before. It DOES encourage people to do predictable actions, which makes my life easier as a DM. Although, I do miss the slightly more interesting actions people came up with before. It's a tradeoff, I think.

 

[RFisher]

In direct response to this thread, I went out and bought three copies of Everway on ebay.

So, RA, you're trying to support rules-heavy games by buying up all copies the rules-light games so that other people can't buy them?

 

[RFisher]

I actually do not disagree with you on this point, and think it is compatible with my overall point. At the same time, though, I understand (even if I do not agree with) those players who think that greater detail makes the system achieve a greater degree of verisimilitude (for them).

Yeah. I just thought it was a point worth expounding on so used your post as an excuse.

& I do know that I'm not the only one for whom better simulation was a reason to look for higher abstraction.

 

[RFisher]

Back in 2nd edition AD&D, I'd come up with a house rule for something not covered by the rules and suddenly have 3 players who would all start arguing about how my rule wasn't the correct one or that it wasn't realistic enough or it was too hard.

My group from the early 1990s was sort of like this. I especially remember a lot of GURPS arguments, & it wasn't house rules we were arguing about but the RAW. Though, come think about it, we had our share of house rule arguments too.

Truth be told, I just enjoy arguing. I suppose one or two others in the group did too.

I don't know why things are so much different in my current group. With all the different systems we've played, it isn't the rules. Maybe I've just changed. Maybe my current group is just different from my old group.

 

[rogueattorney]

So, RA, you're trying to support rules-heavy games by buying up all copies the rules-light games so that other people can't buy them?

...and when I have enough, I'll make one big rule-less bonfire, and see all the ambiguity and uncertainty go up in smoke. Never again shall a GM be required to make a judgment call!!! They'll all become senseless automatons for me to command and the world will be mine! Mine! Mine! Mwu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Actually, one's for me, and the other two are Father's Day presents for my dad and my brother.

R.A.