Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5115934" data-attributes="member: 4937">I admit to being somewhat of an extreme case.I find it very difficult to enjoy movies or novels that are not internally consistant, or where the characters do stupid and irrational things solely to further the plot.  For me, RPGs are no different.  In an RPG it's not just that I find it difficult to suspend my disbelief, it's that when I discover something that is inconsistant I assume its deliberately included as some sort of clue and will start chasing it.  If this chase doesn't have some sort of payoff, then I get irritated.  Also, I'm going to tend to be irritated by any rule or ruling which is unrealistic when any sort of obvious rule or ruling could have taken its place without that much trouble.  For example, it irritated me in 3.5 when horses went from occupying a 5'x10' space to occupying a 10'x10' space.  Dropping realism like that for the sake of trivial rules simplification irritates me like fingernails on a chalk board.  Ditto 4e and its square bursts.Zero.  But in practice that's never achievable, so whatever the minimal metacommunication that is necessary for clarity.  I also really really hate when players stop in the middle of combat to discuss tactics and plans in an out of character fashion, and generally will immediately act to stop it.  Players that want to coordinate are expected to communicate through there players on their turns and in character.If it comes down to a question of mechanics vs. story, the mechanics have to go or better yet change to suit the story.  If I have a really detailed combat system, and I suddenly find myself in a situation that that combat system doesn't handle well (for example in d20 if the player proposes that the characters undertake simultaneous action in order to avoid getting separated, or a cinematic chase scene breaks out), then the proposition will be handled with the best available rules fudge or by transitioning to another rules subsystem and to hell with the strict letter of the rules.Naturally, the less often you have to rules fudge despite the detailed 'realistic' proposition handling available in the rules as written, the more impressive I find the system.Deep and robust.  It's nice to have some large scale consistancy like 'Roll a d20 and beat a number', for when you just need an ad hoc fortune mechanic, but you have to be careful that the system isn't so rules light that it implies to the player that the set of propositions that they can make is strictly limited, or to the DM that if the rules don't handle it explicitly then it must be impermissable.  Lots of rules subsystems are preferable to just a few, because rules subsystems encourage DM creativity and player initiative.   Of course the danger here is that your rules heavy system will encourage so much metagame language that it will get in the way of natural propositions and roleplay, so you need some guidelines for the player on how to create a valid meta-proposition like 'I use diplomacy on the Duke' using a natural proposition like, 'Your Grace, I sought an audience with you because you are reknowned for your bravery and sound judgment...'</blockquote>

Verification