Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9442652" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Then you are inherently asking for rules that are either contradictory or incomplete.Consistent, Comprehensive, Concrete: Pick two. Want rules that are consistent and comprehensive? You're going to have to rely on abstraction because otherwise you'll miss way, way too many edge cases. Want rules that are comprehensive and concrete? They're going to run into problems where the concrete rules tell you to do something dumb, aka, inconsistency (and that's assuming they're actually designed well.) Want rules that are consistent and concrete? You'll be specifically and explicitly choosing to throw the game-runners (DM, GM, ST, whatever) to the wolves whenever they want to do anything outside of those limited rules.Abstraction is not the enemy. It is an incredibly useful and powerful tool. Like any powerful tool, it must be used with finesse. Unlike the other two concessions--inconsistency and fragmentation--it is not only possible but eminently practical for the at-the-table DM to make an abstraction more contextually concrete based on the situation at hand. That doesn't require amateur game design; it just requires practical human reasoning and sensitivity, something any person can develop simply by interacting with others.My assertion is that you have over-emphasized the problems of 1 (which are eminently resolvable without having to constantly act as an armchair game designer) while downplaying or even denying several of the clear and quite obvious problems with 4.But what does "the DM will now make crap up" actually mean?Does it mean "the DM will completely and wholly reinvent what tasks are, what they mean, how they work, etc., etc., every single time such a task comes up?" Does it mean that the DM is now beholden to every precedent and proposal they've ever made in the past, without any record thereof other than player and DM memory, something quite common at most tables?Or does it mean that the DM is expected to use the tools and concepts presented to them creatively?Because the former--either capricious (or even malicious) altering of the world beneath the player's feet, or the accidental doing of such because no human can be expected to keep that much in their head forever with only intermittent reminder--is quite clearly something I think even you would clearly oppose. But the latter is something everyone, even I, would support.You can't pretend the two are the same thing though. They aren't. You can have the latter without the former--and the judicious use of abstraction is one of the most essential tools for making that happen.And jettisons a vast, vast realm of really excellent game design because you're unwilling to consider the possibility that abstraction is a useful tool, not a burden to be expunged at the earliest possible opportunity.</blockquote>

Verification