Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5937687" data-attributes="member: 70707">Of course there's that difference.What I don't understand is how that somehow makes clear, tight rules undesirable.&nbsp; Less absolutely necessary?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; The DM can play game designer, patch over missing stuff, and fix bugs.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean that forcing the DM to design rules is a good thing.This is also where &quot;rulings not rules&quot; breaks down if you also want consistency (as Monte says is very important).&nbsp; Consistent rulings are rules.&nbsp; They're just rules invented by the DM, on the spot, and likely to be poorly remembered from session to session.&nbsp; Why that should be expected to be better than rules carefully crafted by professionals, and well presented in a book, is beyond me.Good rules light systems are very rules tight.&nbsp; Monte is not talking about rules light systems.&nbsp; He's talking about &quot;not rules&quot;.&quot;You have itchy powder on you, take it from there!&quot; is not &quot;rules light&quot;.&nbsp; It's &quot;not rules&quot;.&quot;You have itchy powder on you, which applies an aspect&quot;, where aspects have clear, specific rules (as in Fate), is &quot;rules light&quot;, and &quot;rules tight&quot;.&quot;You have itchy powder on you.&nbsp; It gives -3 to rolls, and takes 2 turns, and a resistance roll to remove&quot;, is heavier rules, but not significantly more or less tight than the aspect.Those are all concrete rules.&nbsp; I'm not seeing any real distinction other than how flexible of rules the designer decided to make.&nbsp; The flexibility of a ruleset is tangential to how tight it is.&nbsp; Any of those rules can be played as-is, or houseruled into something else.&nbsp; Any of those rules can exist for game design/balance, or in-world logic reasons.What Monte seems to be advocating is more &quot;You're an elf!&nbsp; Now play what that logically means.&quot; and leaving it at that.&nbsp; None of your options are that.OK, sure, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with Monte's essay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5937687, member: 70707"] Of course there's that difference. What I don't understand is how that somehow makes clear, tight rules undesirable. Less absolutely necessary? Sure. The DM can play game designer, patch over missing stuff, and fix bugs. But that doesn't mean that forcing the DM to design rules is a good thing. This is also where "rulings not rules" breaks down if you also want consistency (as Monte says is very important). Consistent rulings [i]are[/i] rules. They're just rules invented by the DM, on the spot, and likely to be poorly remembered from session to session. Why that should be expected to be better than rules carefully crafted by professionals, and well presented in a book, is beyond me. Good rules light systems are very rules tight. Monte is not talking about rules light systems. He's talking about "not rules". "You have itchy powder on you, take it from there!" is not "rules light". It's "not rules". "You have itchy powder on you, which applies an aspect", where aspects have clear, specific rules (as in Fate), is "rules light", and "rules tight". "You have itchy powder on you. It gives -3 to rolls, and takes 2 turns, and a resistance roll to remove", is heavier rules, but not significantly more or less tight than the aspect. Those are all concrete rules. I'm not seeing any real distinction other than how flexible of rules the designer decided to make. The flexibility of a ruleset is tangential to how tight it is. Any of those rules can be played as-is, or houseruled into something else. Any of those rules can exist for game design/balance, or in-world logic reasons. What Monte seems to be advocating is more "You're an elf! Now play what that logically means." and leaving it at that. None of your options are that. OK, sure, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with Monte's essay. [/QUOTE]

Verification