Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but you're not everyone and this is an area where there's a variety of priorities.

Sure, we all can do whatever we want at our own tables. But my opinion on the matter is just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, we all can do whatever we want at our own tables. But my opinion on the matter is just as valid as anyone else's.

I'm just saying I'm, well, surprised you're surprised. There's been enough discussion around here about not compelling people to behave according to mental traits that I'd have thought it wouldn't be news to you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm just saying I'm, well, surprised you're surprised. There's been enough discussion around here about not compelling people to behave according to mental traits that I'd have thought it wouldn't be news to you.

It isn't, but I don't consider needing to be an elf because you chose to play an elf to be the same thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It isn't, but I don't consider needing to be an elf because you chose to play an elf to be the same thing.

Still curious what you mean by that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Still curious what you mean by that.

I mean elves have a place in the world, both within their own cultures and how they are seen by other cultures. The world will treat you like an elf.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean elves have a place in the world, both within their own cultures and how they are seen by other cultures. The world will treat you like an elf.

Oh oh oh....I thought you meant there were certain ways players of elves are expected to roleplay their character.

I'm 100% on board with the world treating my character like an elf.










Which means, "Like a cross between Jon Bon Jovi and Brad Pitt", right?

 

[pemerton]

I happen to mostly agree with that (see below) but I don't know if I would call it a general trend. Certainly in this forum there is vehement disagreement.

My own caveat to that statement is that the stats are strictly mechanical only in the sense that it's the only aspect enforceable by the GM. But certainly the player is free to...and maybe even encouraged to...lean into the 'meaning' of those stats.

Leaning into the "meaning" I think is often going to be pretty close to mere colour, rather than fictional positioning.

That is how we approached stats in 4e D&D.

On the other hand, in our Classic Traveller game stats are also taken to establish fictional positioning, and so directly inform what actions are permissible and how they resolve (not just in mechanical terms).

Quite different ways of handling stats!

EDIT to also respond to this:

Wow. I never saw those things as just mechanics. They're always part of the fiction and matter in that context.

Mere colour is part of the fiction, but I'm focusing more on fictional position.

Like, in our Traveller game INT and EDU stats are taken to shape permissible action declarations, to shape resolution (independent of dice rolls - eg the ex-Navy officer with high EDU knows how to interpret naval codes). Likewise physical stats - the guy with high DEX and low STR is clearly small and wiry, and so could squeeze through the narrow space.

Sometimes stats also modify a roll in a mechanical fashion - but unlike in our 4e game, that's not all that they do.

 

[pemerton]

I tends to climb right up against the "telling people how to play their character" question, and with a lot of people and groups that's very, very fraught.

There's been enough discussion around here about not compelling people to behave according to mental traits that I'd have thought it wouldn't be news to you.

Following on from my post just upthread - I don't see this as about "telling people how to play their character". When we play Classic Traveller, no one tells anyone how to play their character. But it is understood by everyone that the stats reflect a "truth" about the character that is very different from what ability scores mean in 4e D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that some things, like the weapon damage example, are just routine parts of a game. If they are adjusted, there ought to be a consistent way its done. One way is DR where certain types bypass the resistance, and the resistance and/or immunity works in the same application across the game.

Your doom die example seems consistent to me in that there is a process for the GM to make a monster explode on death. The GM understands it, and as a player I can come to understand it. However, if a GM is just deciding on a whim that X exploding monster does random damage, and Y monster does a different amount off of different conditions, then it gets into inconsistency territory. Where the rulings are more wild west then informed and guided by any system foundation, it becomes inconsistent.

I think any game where the GM is allowed to decide things "on a whim" is apt to be a bit fraught. In classic D&D, I would see the GM's prep as the constraint on whim. In many of the RPGs I play, there are other rules and principles that operate - prep looms less large (thought it is still a thing in some of them, especially Torchbearer 2e).

If the GM is not constrained by prep, and is not constrained by rules or principles, then I think a broader ideal of consistency might be hard to operationalise . . .

 

[Emerikol]

I imagine your players are rules lawyers. Which I expect is the most extreme of the heavy rules people. I like a simple streamlined system but I don't mind options though players should be able to opt-in or out on complexity.