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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2394687" data-attributes="member: 27012">Well, doing so actually seems to be helping clarifying things.Sure, no problem. I disagree that the rules simply provide "psychological comfort" and simply hide differences in the AOR.  In my experience, a group can use the rules do define the AOR and the more comprehensive the rules, the more comprehensive the AOR they provide.It's because both I and the GM are using the rules to provide a substantial amount of the AOR.  The codify the way things will be resolved in a way that's accessible to both the players and GM.  They serve the same purpose as the GM writing a treatise on how they are going to resolve combat based on the various conditions present.  Rather than the GM making it up, they use the AOR provided by the game designers and incorporated into the rules as a common framework.The less GM subjectivity that's present in the resolution process, the less differences in AOR seem to matter in my experience.  My group has severe AOR difference problems despite many of us having role-played together for more than a decade and despite knowing each other quite well.  For whatever reasons, our assessments of reality differ substantially quote often.  The more the resolution of a situation relies on an objective ruleset and the less it relies on the GM's personal assessment of the situation, the less the AOR matters in my experience.In my experience, GMs don't worry about strong updrafts and mud unless there is a strong setting-based reason for having such things involved in the situation.  YMMV.  But I do wonder if at least some of the GMs who do include things like mud and updrafts are doing so to justify setting their own DC based on how much risk they want the task to have for a particular PC.  In my experience, that's exactly how rule-heavy systems like D&D 3e and the Hero system usually work in practice, even if the rules as written permit the GM to inject a subjective assessment into the numbers.  In my experience, a GM looking to work with the rules (rather than fighting them) will often just use the rules as written.  YMMV.  In such a situation, the GM normally really don't have to make any judgement calls about the mechanics to resolve a situation because the rules do define all the numbers on an objective way.I don't think it's the same thing for two reasons.  A big difference is deciding to use a modifier or not is very different than a GM subjectively determining the magnitude of a modifier.  There is a big difference between deciding that the bottom of a pit is solid stone 20 feet from the top of the pit (apply falling rules accordingly) and deciding that the 20 foot fall will break a character's leg.  There is a big difference between deciding that a pit is 20 feet across and applying the jumping rules for 20 feet and deciding the DC to jump across the 20 foot pit.  And it also raises the issue of whether the GM is setting the DC for story-based reasons or for setting-based reasons once the DC is entirely in the GM's hands. If I'm misrepresenting your position, by all means tell me so and don't bother answering.  No offense taken.Because (A) not all subjective judgement calls are equally important and (B) many of the problems with subjective judgement calls only show up as patterns in a string of judgement calls so the odd one-off judgement call is less likely to create a noticable problem than a string of them.  Point (B) is why I'm far more tolerent of things like totally subjective play and even diceless play in a one-off game than in a campaign.  My group tends to run campaigns, not one-offs.There are things I will trust the GMs in my group with and things I won't trust them with.  It's an AOR issue, not a maturity issue.  But I agree that if a group has a strongly shared AOR and good communication, a rule-light game might work very well for that group.  But I would still argue that the two can feel different and the way the game is played can change more than simply the reduction of rules, sometimes in desirable ways and somtimes in undesirable ways.I think it's certainly possible to run D&D that way most of the time and I do think that using just the rules for most situations and minimizing the subjective input of the GM into the resolution process can actually provide an AOR for a group that doesn't otherwise have one.  For example, if a GM pits my PC against a group of orcs, it doesn't matter if he and I have a different assessment of the PC's chance of victory.  The assessment of reality provided by the game's designers via the rules will ultimately determine who wins.  I don't have to ask the GM what my chances of winning are or what various variables mean.  I can look at the rules for that.I disagree with that, too.  Rule sufficiency is a highly subjective assessment and you can see how much it differs from group to group simply by looking at the rules different groups use, homebrew, and ignore.  In reality, most people want only the rules they need and not extra rules that they don't need.The problem is that throwing out the detail doesn't mean that those details are "covered by the rules" in the same way that taking them into account does.  And for the record, I'm a big advocate of using rule-light systems in the way you describe but, alas, many players want more control and want to micromanage things like combat.  Personally, I have no use for feinting rules and such.  I assume that a suitably skilled fighter is using things like feints as a part of what makes them a suitably skilled fighter.In my experience, it does when the subjectivity is minimalized because both parties are not relying on their own AOR to resolve actions.  They are relying on the AOR of the game designers as reflected in the rules.  It's like having a third party in the picture using an AOR that's accessible to both player and GM if they care to read the rules and comprehend them.  This really isn't that complicated.  It's the same reason software development teams use written processes and project plans to develop projects.  The more that's defined, the more accessible it is to all parties.  Rule-heavy systems simply define more information about how tasks will be resolved than rule-light systems do. Yes.  Because I think the bit you are missing is that in a rule-heavy game, the AOR of the game designers, as reflected by the rules, looms large on the horizon.  I don't have to communicate with the GM to understand how combat is going to be resolved in D&D or Hero.  I can read a book.  And as long as the GM and I are reading the same book, it should help give us a shared AOR for resolving what happens in the game.  And in my experience, it does.I play with people who, despite our best intentions and years of playing together, still have some nasty AOR problems so it does matter to us how heavy or light our rules our.  Yes, we can use rule-light games but there is such a thing as "too rule-light" for my group.  On the other hand, we're all primarily role-players not wargamers so there is also such a thing as "too rule-heavy".  We try to find a happy compromise in between.  It's because the rules minimize the need for GM subjectivity and the GM doesn't feel a need to insert subjectivity when it isn't necessary.  I suppose you could call that a shared AOR but it's a very simple one -- "We're using the rules as written and the GM is expected to use custom subjective modifiers as little as possible."  That's fairly easy to establish, even if you have to do so explicitly.Well, I think this describes exactly what I'm talking about.  If you use stock modifiers 80% of the time, that means that 80% of the time, you are using the AOR provided by the rules which bypasses AOR problems that might exist between player and GM.  My point is not that adding subjective modifiers here and there makes the game rule-light but that it resolves the situation in the same way that a rule-light game would, with all the benefits and liabilities of doing so.  It's the other 80% that I'm interested in because that's the part that's missing in a rule-light game.  No, 80% isn't 100% but if a group has problems, 80% is a lot better than 0%.The GMs in my group (myself included) tend to use the game rules as a proxy for how things work in their game world.  In my experience, rules knowledge in those situations does translate into a substantially shared AOR because the AOR is the rules.  As I've said, my group seems to find it impossible to find a consistently shared AOR on the subjective player and GM level yet we all seem to be satisfied when we have rules to provide an external and defined AOR.  As such, a certain level of rules (not necessarily as heavy as D&D) are what allows us to have a happy and successful RPG group, at least for longer campaigns.In my experience, I don't believe this is true.  In my experience, the process of reading a rule system can help establish a common AOR between player and GM.  The more that's defined by the rules, the less finding a common AOR is going to depend on the players and GM understanding one another and the more it's going to depend on the players and GM understanding the rules.The imaginary space is filtered through the rules which define a great deal about what's possible and not possible within the shared space.  That's why the rule system used matters and why there are different rule systems for different settings and genres.  Using your 80% from above, if 80% of your decisions as a GM are based on the rules and not your subjective assessment of the situation, then 80% of your decisions are defined by the AOR of the rules and not your AOR.That's back to the excluded middle argument.  They don't have to cover every situation.  If they cover 80% of the situations (your assessment for your games), then that's substantially more objective than 0% or just making stuff up as you go. Yes, but just because the GM is consistent and predictable in their game and think they are being fair by ruling that a miss never has a chance of hitting an ally does not mean that players will expect it until it's established (they might make decisions based on the assumption that they can hit allies unless the GM tells them otherwise or they figure it out) or even think it's reasonable or just.  Having rules that define what happens when a ranged attack miss lets the players and GM know what to expect, even if they've never seen a miss before.  And if they don't like how it works, they have the opportunity before the game even starts to homebrew in a different way of doing it, before it becomes a critical issue in the game.Even if I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, I'd rather not spend that time discussing the nuances of the setting just like I'd rather not spend my time watching television watching commercials, credits, or a test pattern.  To me, discussing whether my character is close enough to get hit by an NPC as he runs by in combat is about equal to counting squares or looking up a rule and if looking up the rule or counting squares if faster and gives a similar answer, then sign me up for the faster alternative.  Further, while I'm querying the GM about things that only matter to my character and my decision, the other players are sitting there essentially looking at a test pattern.  That a game moves along at something resembling real time matters to me and is, in fact, the primary reason why rule-light systems appeal to me.  Often they do run faster than a rule-heavy system.</blockquote>

Verification