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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2393541" data-attributes="member: 25930">Well, keep in mind that RL and RH are simply points on a continuum, and each individual has a different tolerance for detail. When people call a particular system RH, I think they are almost always referring to the level of detail and, perhaps, simple page count. "Hmm, this system has a core book that's 96 pages, so it's lite, but that system has 128 pages, so it's heavy..." Rules-insufficient, OTOH, is a term that can be applied to any system, regardless of size.What drives systems to become RH is the desire for mechanisms that deliver satisfying results. As someone (you?) mentioned much earlier in this thread, flipping a coin to determine the outcome of a challenge is the ultimate RL system. The problem is, it's not a whole lot of fun. So we add rules to better define the challenges and what we, as players can do to overcome them. We add rules to assist suspension of disbelief. We add rules to limit the power gamers and encourage actual roleplaying. We add rules to limit the damage bad GM's can do. And when the day is done, we oftentimes end up with a system that's pretty heavy - because we want a satisfying game. Of course, defining a satsifying gaming experience varies from group to group, so no one system will appeal to everyone. For most players, I would suggest "winning" is critical, be it rescuing the princess, saving the village, stopping Dr. Doom, or solving the impossible puzzle. But other elements are important, e.g., the social aspects of spending time with friends in a common activity. Does the group enjoy combat? Then they'll prefer a system that highlights combat. And so on.But there's no question that a system that gets in the way of the satisfying game experience will be criticized. A RL system is criticized because the player doesn't like the "arbitrary" nature of the rules. A RH system is criticized because it's too much work to use all those detailed rules. What every critic is saying is simply: this system has flaws that affect my fun. Now we're back to what Mearls was referring to about the game interface. Which, IMO, is a much more helpful way to evaluate a system, rather than focusing on page count or rules detail (or lack thereof).</blockquote>

Verification