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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6321474" data-attributes="member: 27160">Having "no clue" of course requires "no rules" and, as you say yourself, this is generally not the case even at game start. Lack of rules still leads to lack of knowledge, however - and I have come accross it quite a bit. Usually, it happens when players try to get "creative" with their plans, and it manifests as the players believing that a plan is realistic (in the sense that it has a good chance to work, more than that it would work out the way described in the real world - but both are factors) when the GM has (effectively) decided that it's a dud.With rules that are just "weighty" that's an issue, I agree. Which is why I think the epitome of "good rules" aims for elegance - which is covering lots of ground with short, clear and eloquent rules. I think 4E does this well, but I would also recommend Primetime Adventures as a (totally different) game that does it exceptionally well, too. Dungeon world seems to have some merit, judging by what I read of it, but I have yet to sit down and read it (I only just got it).For some it may be a trust thing, but I don't think that's the core of it. It's a world-model thing. Some people just have beliefs about how stuff works that are radically different to the way I think stuff works. That doesn't mean either of us is wrong (though, obviously, I think they are, otherwise my beliefs would be different!), it just means that what each of us thinks will be the result of a situation will differ - which is a problem if one of us gets to dictate what happens without the other of us knowing what the "model" is in advance. Rules avoid this by encoding the model in a set of dice relations (or whatever) that we can both read and understand. The fact that, for example, you think that raising your greataxe high above your head prior to a strike will increase your damage while I think it will just give an opening for your opponent to kill you will not matter if the rules state (in some way) what the outcome of such a move will be. Often, I find it works best to say that the move makes no difference to the standard combat system process, and just allow players to describe/explain/rationalise the outcomes however they wish. Otherwise Thrud the Barbarian would be a dead bunny in all my games...Rules application the computer does very well indeed, but long experience tells me that tactical play of combat opponents, character play of NPCs and strategic planning are things the "AI" does exceedingly poorly most of the time. My idea of the ideal game is a computer (or equivalent through steamlined, elegant rules known to all the players) handling the interactions in detailed time and a human (or near-human) GM (or other players) handling the plotting and planning.Right - hence the absence of "total cluelessness", earlier. But the players are clueless to the extent that the rules don't cover the interaction between their character and the rest of the world. Hence it should be covered as far as possible. The rules don't need to be "heavy" - this is not a plea for rules that are "realistic" or cover every possible factor that someone imagines will be pertinent in "real life". The rules just need to be rules - not vague models that get overruled the instant some individual thinks that they "obviously don't apply". "Obviously don't apply" is in the eye of the beholder, and if I'm relying on the rule being a rule for my character's action it sucks to find out that the (game) world actually works differently than a person who has grown up there thinks it does.</blockquote>

Verification