Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chiaroscuro23" data-source="post: 3091389" data-attributes="member: 15371">Length of resolution time is not necessarily directly related to rules complexity. Particularly length of combat resolution. Consider the old World of Darkness. Combat rounds took forever despite the relative simplicity of the system, because you had to roll initiative, declare actions, resolve actions--attack rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, &quot;soak&quot; (DR) rolls, or use whatever appropriate magic power. Since it used a dice pool system, you had to roll a number of d10s and then count them up, which is faster than rolling a die pool then adding them, but slower than rolling a single die and adding (which is itself slower than rolling a single die against a flat value, like BRP does.)Also check out <a href="http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6336502&amp;postcount=63" target="_blank">http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6336502&amp;postcount=63</a><a href="http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6337766&amp;postcount=69" target="_blank">http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6337766&amp;postcount=69</a>Similarly, games can have lots of rules in non-combat areas. Consider the hacking rules in Shadowrun games, the chargen rules in point buy games like GURPS and HERO, or specific subsets for magic, social, or other stuff.Anyway, to answer the basic thrust of the thread: does having defined rules create rules arguments? A lot depends on the culture of the game. A GM could say ahead of time that his word is law, and a rule will only count if he wants--thereafter there are no rule arguments regardless of the number of rules. (There might also be no players, but that's another argument). Alternatively, he could say that the rules will be followed absolutely, most of the time, and so on. Does having clear answers that need to be looked up cause arguments more than having vague answers with multiple interpretations? IME, clear rules always yeild fewer arguments, given equal GM willingness to hear arguments.-C.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chiaroscuro23, post: 3091389, member: 15371"] Length of resolution time is not necessarily directly related to rules complexity. Particularly length of combat resolution. Consider the old World of Darkness. Combat rounds took forever despite the relative simplicity of the system, because you had to roll initiative, declare actions, resolve actions--attack rolls, dodge rolls, damage rolls, "soak" (DR) rolls, or use whatever appropriate magic power. Since it used a dice pool system, you had to roll a number of d10s and then count them up, which is faster than rolling a die pool then adding them, but slower than rolling a single die and adding (which is itself slower than rolling a single die against a flat value, like BRP does.) Also check out [url]http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6336502&postcount=63[/url] [url]http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6337766&postcount=69[/url] Similarly, games can have lots of rules in non-combat areas. Consider the hacking rules in Shadowrun games, the chargen rules in point buy games like GURPS and HERO, or specific subsets for magic, social, or other stuff. Anyway, to answer the basic thrust of the thread: does having defined rules create rules arguments? A lot depends on the culture of the game. A GM could say ahead of time that his word is law, and a rule will only count if he wants--thereafter there are no rule arguments regardless of the number of rules. (There might also be no players, but that's another argument). Alternatively, he could say that the rules will be followed absolutely, most of the time, and so on. Does having clear answers that need to be looked up cause arguments more than having vague answers with multiple interpretations? IME, clear rules always yeild fewer arguments, given equal GM willingness to hear arguments. -C. [/QUOTE]

Verification