Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3436626" data-attributes="member: 3424">Actually, I would make a distinction between the rules telling you what to do, and the rules telling you what happens. This harkens back to my earlier point on page one (or so) of this thread on menu-driven player interfaces vs interfaces that accept an unlimited variety of inputs.In a menu-driven player interface, the rules tell you what to do, because there is no option to try something outside the ambit of the rules. However, in a table-top RPG, you wouldn't normally have a menu-driven interface, and players can try anything (whether or not they succeed at it is another matter, of course). What the rules do is define what happens, e.g. whether the player succeeds, and how well.This is where I make a further distinction between more comprehensive and less comprehensive rules sets. This has nothing to do with &quot;rules-light&quot; or &quot;rules-heavy&quot;. It is possible to have a very comprehensive but very rules-light rule set. For example, the coin flip resolution system mentioned by RFisher: flip a coin to determine whether the PC succeeds at anything.Compared to previous editions of D&amp;D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 3436626, member: 3424"] Actually, I would make a distinction between the rules telling you what to do, and the rules telling you what happens. This harkens back to my earlier point on page one (or so) of this thread on menu-driven player interfaces vs interfaces that accept an unlimited variety of inputs. In a menu-driven player interface, the rules tell you what to do, because there is no option to try something outside the ambit of the rules. However, in a table-top RPG, you wouldn't normally have a menu-driven interface, and players can try anything (whether or not they succeed at it is another matter, of course). What the rules do is define what happens, e.g. whether the player succeeds, and how well. This is where I make a further distinction between more comprehensive and less comprehensive rules sets. This has nothing to do with "rules-light" or "rules-heavy". It is possible to have a very comprehensive but very rules-light rule set. For example, the coin flip resolution system mentioned by RFisher: flip a coin to determine whether the PC succeeds at [U]anything[/U]. Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man. [/QUOTE]

Verification