Let's Talk About "Intended Playstyle"

[Nth Dimension Games]

I think assuming every system only devolves into pass/fail with no meaningful nuance in the output beyond that, nor any relavant ability to put your thumb on the scale (if you're doing either of those--both seem possible) is a premise I don't accept.

I use "devolve" in the sense you cannot simplify it any more. You can always add more nuance. "You pass, but..." and "you fail, but..." Is the system I use for the extra nuance to tell a compelling story.

The light and simple systems will be as close to just the pass/fail state as possible. There's no room to lawyer your way out of a fail into a pass because you convinced the DM to add a few point to your score because of good roleplay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I use "devolve" in the sense you cannot simplify it any more. You can always add more nuance. "You pass, but..." and "you fail, but..." Is the system I use for the extra nuance to tell a compelling story.

Okay, you meant it somewhat the opposite of what it seemed.

The light and simple systems will be as close to just the pass/fail state as possible. There's no room to lawyer your way out of a fail into a pass because you convinced the DM to add a few point to your score because of good roleplay.

But you've just explained how you can. Such systems tend to drop to at least some extent (some more than others) into accepting "rulings not rules" because their rules are too lightweight to handle any nuance internally, so GM judgments tend to weigh in more heavily, and as such "playing the GM" is always a larger risk. How much larger depends on the dynamics of the people involved, but there's certainly plenty of room for it to potentially happen.