Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4158000" data-attributes="member: 3192">Sincerely, I think you are asking the wrong question.  100% of situations could easily be covered by coin tosses.  That's simply an unsatisfying method.  I think KM is more on track.  It's more about abstract vs. specific and breadth vs. depth.  In no way is only one rule necessary for any one given situation.  The more rules the better IMO.For my part I use OD&D, so my examples are drawn from it.  The core rules are abstract and don't go into great depth.  But they do cover great breadth.  It includes variety of systems: 1:1 combat, wilderness travel, magic, aerial flight, naval combat, mass combat, dungeon construction, monsters, etc.  The point here is the game has great breadth, but very little depth.  You don't need depth when you are just starting out at the game.  Historically, published rule depth came from the many house rules and additional elements which were made "core" in AD&D.  That's why Advanced feels like someone's vast store of house rules were made permanent for everyone who played it.  Some were good, some were mediocre, and some were just plain bad.  But the idea that they were the only option somehow stuck in people's heads.  They needed to break out.The best part about OD&D was there weren't 100% of situations covered, but more like 1000% - maybe even more.  That's because, instead of multiplicity of single rules addressing single circumstances, you had abstract systems with tons of redundancy.  By the time all five supplements were out in '77 the game had 3 combat systems and 2 mass combat systems to choose from.  It's not a toolkit with a 1000 different rules for 1000 different situations, but one with a variety of tools for shaping the game to address those elements you wanted it too.My suggestion is to keep whatever initial rules you use abstract/shallow.  And when the players tell you or show you they are interested in some deeper, specific element, then dig out that massive tool chest of vast and redundant rules.  Use the specific/detailed rule that work best for the situation at hand.  Whether it be combat maneuvers or varieties of grassland and their growth speeds.  This way play remains quick and the rules necessary for the ref to remember remain small and always directed towards the individual group's interests.  This is not to say you needn't simplify rules for easy referral.  Like the games out in the past decade which use pretty much the same random mechanic for everything.  But it allows you to choose when you want to stay simplified and when you want to use a complex rule that enlivens the situation at hand.  By offering a variety of very abstract subsystems an initial published game can allow for a variety of ways to explore the world and ease buy in to the rules.  Of course, the breadth can be expanded (like in Birthright), but most players I've known want specifics.  With publishers and shared house rules offering a variety of tools to dig deeper into those specific, more detailed areas of the world, Refs can pick and choose which of the multiple options for their own games customizing each to players' interests.  And they need only to remember these exception rules without having to memorize a massive number which have never come up.I think if publishers designed rules for all varieties of situations / areas of play, whether they go abstract, detailed, maybe even some new, interesting mode, then they could sell products for rules mechanics already covered in the core books.  Or even their own.</blockquote>

Verification