Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9590159" data-attributes="member: 20564">That must have been some discussion that every member of the group abandoned your table because of a preference.The issue is that there's a diminishing return in more rules.&nbsp; You can have a simple task resolution, and that by&nbsp; itself can handle say 50% of the cases that come up.&nbsp; No single rule can add more.&nbsp; Add in a list of modifiers for common issues, and you might be covering 80%.&nbsp; Every rule after that adds more complexity for less return.I remember in a 3.x game with us paused mid-session for a good 10+ minutes because there was a combat going on waist deep in water in a marsh, and we knew there were rules for it but couldn't find them.&nbsp; And the group wanted the rules, even though none of them actually knew the exact rule so we couldn't either follow what they knew nor make an adjudication.&nbsp; It was in one of the many (!!) additional monthly hardcovers for 3.x, not the core rules.So, there comes a point where the players cannot make informed judgement based on the rules because there are too many rules, covering too many corner cases.&nbsp; At this point the argument for complexity breaks down.And this doesn't even address the organization of those rules.&nbsp; That was one of the reasons I subscribed to the 4e tools, they had a wonderful compendium that if I knew a rule existed (not a given), then I could look it up fast.On the flip side, rules are a shared understanding.&nbsp; That's why I am perfectly fine mid-session with rulings (&quot;the rules don't cover this corner case, let me make a call&quot;) and very against house-rules mid session (&quot;the rules are clear but I'm changing them&quot;).&nbsp; And yes, if a game is too light players don't have enough mechanical/probability understanding to make a call.Let me give an example even in a non-rules light game (PF2r) - was recently in a session and to get a horse you are riding to do things in combat takes a check.&nbsp; One my character wasn't good at.&nbsp; If I don't know the DC of that check, I can't make any call on if I will move faster over a long distance on horse or on foot.&nbsp; The DM told me it was a DC 10 check, and I got off the horse.Or we were playing Fate Core, in an Expanse/Mass Effect inspired universe, and our ship's engineer had no guidance on what was appropriate to even try, so kept herself to doing very basic things.&nbsp; Because there wasn't guidance to even give a scope of what she should be able to accomplish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 9590159, member: 20564"] That must have been some discussion that every member of the group abandoned your table because of a preference. The issue is that there's a diminishing return in more rules. You can have a simple task resolution, and that by itself can handle say 50% of the cases that come up. No single rule can add more. Add in a list of modifiers for common issues, and you might be covering 80%. Every rule after that adds more complexity for less return. I remember in a 3.x game with us paused mid-session for a good 10+ minutes because there was a combat going on waist deep in water in a marsh, and [I]we knew there were rules for it[/I] but couldn't find them. And the group wanted the rules, even though [I]none of them actually knew the exact rule[/I] so we couldn't either follow what they knew nor make an adjudication. It was in one of the many (!!) additional monthly hardcovers for 3.x, not the core rules. So, there comes a point where the players [I]cannot[/I] make informed judgement based on the rules because there are too many rules, covering too many corner cases. At this point the argument for complexity breaks down. And this doesn't even address the organization of those rules. That was one of the reasons I subscribed to the 4e tools, they had a wonderful compendium that [I][B]if I knew a rule existed[/B][/I] (not a given), [I][B]then I could look it up fast.[/B][/I] On the flip side, rules are a shared understanding. That's why I am perfectly fine mid-session with rulings ("the rules don't cover this corner case, let me make a call") and very against house-rules mid session ("the rules are clear but I'm changing them"). And yes, if a game is too light players don't have enough mechanical/probability understanding to make a call. Let me give an example even in a non-rules light game (PF2r) - was recently in a session and to get a horse you are riding to do things in combat takes a check. One my character wasn't good at. If I don't know the DC of that check, I can't make any call on if I will move faster over a long distance on horse or on foot. The DM told me it was a DC 10 check, and I got off the horse. Or we were playing Fate Core, in an Expanse/Mass Effect inspired universe, and our ship's engineer had no guidance on what was appropriate to even try, so kept herself to doing very basic things. Because there wasn't guidance to even give a scope of what she should be able to accomplish. [/QUOTE]

Verification