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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1982232" data-attributes="member: 23012">I don't understand why so many people claim that a game with fewer, more general rules, is somehow the same thing as a game with 'inconsistent' rules that require people to come up with rules on their own, or on an ad hoc basis.  This is just mistaken.Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules light) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply more general: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.It is possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved. They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a greater number of cases (and with fewer modifiers).Obviously many people prefer the more complex system. But it is incorrect to claim that the more complex system (3E D&D) is necessarily more consistent than the more general system.  (And often the opposite is true.)</blockquote>

Verification