How so?To be honest, soviet, I don't recognize your characterization of rules light and rules heavy games either. I think that you are being pretty uncharitable in how you talk about rules heavy games.
How so?To be honest, soviet, I don't recognize your characterization of rules light and rules heavy games either. I think that you are being pretty uncharitable in how you talk about rules heavy games.
I'm not sure if I agree with the argument that consistency of one's bias somehow removes said bias.I think without bias can be informed by the other word in the statement - consistency. Rulings will be biased based on play style and a variety of other factors, just as humans. But once that baseline is established, consistency removes bias as an axis, IMO.
I don't think that rules heavy games are somehow anymore prone to fudging than rules light ones. The amount of rules is agnostic about the power relationship of the GM with the associated framework of the rules and their ability to override them, which is what ultimately matters when it comes to fudging.How so?
I don't know what you mean by 'prone to'. I'm talking about the text itself. I think heavier games are more likely to have an explicit 'the GM can fudge' instruction than rules light games.I don't think that rules heavy games are somehow anymore prone to fudging than rules light ones. The amount of rules is agnostic about the power relationship of the GM with the associated framework of the rules and their ability to override them, which is what ultimately matters when it comes to fudging.
I haven't 'crapped on' rules heavy games. In fact, I haven't said a single bad thing about them. MERP/Rolemaster is one of my favourite games.I understand that the way that the winds are currently blowing in this hobby favors rules light games; however, I think that this can be done respectfully without crapping on rules heavy games, which seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread. I am saying this as someone who does not particularly enjoy rules heavy games.
It reads like you’re saying it’s impossible to have a fair referee.
I'm not sure if I agree with that either. There are plenty of rules light games that are big on "Rule 0" or "Golden Rule" forms of adjudication from the GM.I think heavier games are more likely to have an explicit 'the GM can fudge' instruction than rules light games.
Sorry. I created the line in my post to establish that this was not addressed to you but a separate thought.I haven't 'crapped on' rules heavy games. In fact, I haven't said a single bad thing about them. MERP/Rolemaster is one of my favourite games.
This isn't about the amount of rules that exist but the weight they carry - i.e. can the GM fudge. If the rules can be unilaterally overridden by one participant, they have no value in limiting that participant's control over play. Rules heavy games are much more likely to allow fudging than rules light games are. In fact, some light games make it impossible.
I don't recognize this characterization of rules light play (or rules heavy play TBH).
I don't recognize this description of professional football at all.
I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.I'm not sure if I agree with the argument that consistency of one's bias somehow removes said bias.
I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.
Okay. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.