Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6511839" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem is, Zak S, changing the rules is not a &quot;snap your fingers&quot; proposition.&nbsp; There are always costs.&nbsp; Let's say you're right and we make a system that is foolproof.&nbsp; Nothing the players can try isn't covered by the system.&nbsp; It's 100% airtight, a marvel of game design.Now, you start playing.&nbsp; Remember, those that do fudge aren't doing it all the time, they're only spackling over rare occurrences, we'll say 1 die roll in 20.&nbsp; It's probably far fewer than that, but, hey, we're spitballing here.&nbsp; So, play begins and we run into one of those 5% situations where the DM would normally fudge, but, now, has rules to cover.&nbsp; Unfortunately, most DM's aren't gifted with a perfect memory, so, they stop the game to consult the rules in order to make the proper ruling.&nbsp; Now, this will be a good ruling, true, but, it also might be the same as the ruling a fudging DM might make, meaning that it's not always necessary.&nbsp; But, that rule will always cost time at the table.3e is a perfect example of this.&nbsp; I've seen so many tables paralysed by the grapple rules which were extensive but didn't come up all that often at our tables.&nbsp; Thus, no one knew the rules by heart, so, we had to look them up virtually every time.&nbsp; Any system that uses any sort of attack matrix also falls into this category where you have to stop the game and consult tables every time an attack is made.&nbsp; GURPS suffers from this extensively, despite being a system that really does try to cover all the bases.So, sure, you gain consistency because the same ruling is made every time.&nbsp; But, you lose in table pacing and it comes down to what a given table might find more important.&nbsp; Is it better to measure diagonals 1-2-1 or 1-1-1?&nbsp; 1-2-1 is far more accurate, true, but, slower.&nbsp; 1-1-1 is far faster.&nbsp; Which is better?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6511839, member: 22779"] The problem is, Zak S, changing the rules is not a "snap your fingers" proposition. There are always costs. Let's say you're right and we make a system that is foolproof. Nothing the players can try isn't covered by the system. It's 100% airtight, a marvel of game design. Now, you start playing. Remember, those that do fudge aren't doing it all the time, they're only spackling over rare occurrences, we'll say 1 die roll in 20. It's probably far fewer than that, but, hey, we're spitballing here. So, play begins and we run into one of those 5% situations where the DM would normally fudge, but, now, has rules to cover. Unfortunately, most DM's aren't gifted with a perfect memory, so, they stop the game to consult the rules in order to make the proper ruling. Now, this will be a good ruling, true, but, it also might be the same as the ruling a fudging DM might make, meaning that it's not always necessary. But, that rule will always cost time at the table. 3e is a perfect example of this. I've seen so many tables paralysed by the grapple rules which were extensive but didn't come up all that often at our tables. Thus, no one knew the rules by heart, so, we had to look them up virtually every time. Any system that uses any sort of attack matrix also falls into this category where you have to stop the game and consult tables every time an attack is made. GURPS suffers from this extensively, despite being a system that really does try to cover all the bases. So, sure, you gain consistency because the same ruling is made every time. But, you lose in table pacing and it comes down to what a given table might find more important. Is it better to measure diagonals 1-2-1 or 1-1-1? 1-2-1 is far more accurate, true, but, slower. 1-1-1 is far faster. Which is better? [/QUOTE]

Verification