John Morrow said:
By the way, I answered your poll about the GM assigning situational modifiers as saying that I'm OK with it so long as they are applied equally to PC and NPC. That's a stylistic answer, not a trust or deep-seated psychological hang-up answer. My own sense of verisimiltude and suspension of disbelief depends on my not feeling like my character is starring in The Truman Show.
Thanks for voting. That's actually the option I voted for as well.
And I think the mistake you keep making is that you assume that every decision that a GM makes that impacts a game world is equivalent. That's not true. If the GM decides that the sky is purple, that's not the same as deciding that an NPC doesn't like the PCs, that a PC can't jump across a 20 foot chasm, or deciding that a PC that falls trying to leap a 20 foot chasm dies instantly. Nor is it the same for the GM to decide that a chasm is 20 feet wide as it is for the GM to decide how hard it is for the PCs to jump it. If you can't see that distinction, I suspect that's a style issue.
I suspect you're right about it being a style difference. The decisions aren't absolutely equivalent, but I think I see the differences as significantly smaller than you and some of the other people on this thread. From my POV, the things that 3.x D&D asks a DM to "make up" about the game world are at least as significant as whether an NPC has a good reaction to my PC or how hard it is to jump a 10ft pit. The fact that all game systems that involve a DM/GM/CK/etc. ask the referee to create and adjudicate the fantasy world at some level (and as a result, trust that the referee will do a good enough job of it to make the game fun) seems more significant to me than how much guidance in terms of hard numbers the rules actually give that person. It seems to me the difference is only really significant from the referee's side and that, for players, the difference is more qualitative (what kind of judgement calls the DM is making) rather than quantitative (how much the DM's judgement comes into play).
Of course my group can run a game with no rules except "high rolls are good". Heck, I've even role-played with no rules at all, flipping a coin when I needed a randomizer. Can I do it? Sure. But the "pre-packaged AOR' provided by a more complicated set of rules is, in my experience, an easier and better solution.
I think that's exactly my point. The pre-packaged AOR makes the process go faster for your group, who are already pretty adept at finding a common AOR anyway. That's exactly what I would expect - and one of the great strengths of rules heavier games.
On what basis do you make the claim that groups who have trouble establishing a shared AOR in a rule-light game that doesn't provide much of one won't have an easier time if they have a pre-packaged AOR provided by a more complicated rule system?
Personal anecdotal experience only. Unfortunately, quite a bit of personal anecdotal experience.
Not only is that counter-intuitive (Why wouldn't being provided an AOR help a group that has trouble establishing their own?) but it defies my own long personal experience designing systems and experimenting with different levels of system complexity.
I would say all RPGs require the group to reach some level of consensus. If a group is bad at that, I expect them to be bad at it no matter what kind of game they are playing. IME, the rules-heavy systems CAN help by giving a pre-established base-line, but they can also hinder by giving players a sense that the rules are going to do the work of reaching consensus for them. If a group has a difficult time with communication in the first place, playing a rules-heavy game can simply be an excuse not to communicate about their expectations AT ALL, leading to the same types of problems they experienced with a rules-lite game.
Again, I'm not saying this is "THE WAY IT IS". I'm sure there are plenty of groups where that's not the case. It's just that, in my experience, it can be one of the pitfalls (and disproves the theory that rules-heavy games always make it easier to reach a shared AOR).
And in my experience, that's just not true. Neither part of your claim, in fact. If the group has an AOR problem, why do you assume that the rules providing an AOR won't help?
I'm not saying it can't help, just that it's not a guarantee.
In fact, if what you say is really true, then why use any rules at all? Why not simply use "high rolls are good and low rolls are bad" as your only rule or, heck, just let the GM make it all up as they go? And if some rules are useful or helpful, why is it difficult to imagine that more rules might be more useful or more helpful in at least some situations?
Here you're trying to put me back in the position of defending rules-lite vs. rules-heavy. I'm certainly not saying that RPGs are somehow better or more fun or more playable the fewer rules they have. How complex a system to use is a matter of taste, for GM and players.
I'll readily admit that, for some groups - maybe even the majority of roleplaying groups - a more defined system is helpful in establishing a shared AOR. But I don't believe that a more defined system is necessarily a guaranteed "fix" for a group that has problems coming to a consensus on their AOR - because there are only so many things the rules can cover. There's always going to be a significant part of the game left up to definition and adjudication by the GM in any RPG and (even for rules-heavy systems) I think the quantity and impact of things left up to the GM greatly outdistances the codified stuff provided by the rules.
To put it in concrete terms, let's say a rules-lite system covers 10% of the possible decisions a GM might have to make about the world while playing the game and a rules-heavy game covers 60%. I honestly can't see a
qualitative difference between a game where I'm frustrated by 40% of the GM's decisions and a game where I'm frustrated by 90% of the GM's decisions. Both would leave me miserable and wanting not to participate in the game. Likewise, I suspect if another GM ran a game where the 40% of decisions left in his care were resolved in a way that I enjoyed and trusted, that if that number were expanded to 90%, I'd still be enjoying myself - because obviously the GM and I are pretty much on the same page as far as expectations about the game. YMMV.
