Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5900405" data-attributes="member: 1">There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way.&nbsp; It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: &quot;Does that wall look hard to climb?&quot; &quot;it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you.&quot;&nbsp;If you compare an &quot;action&quot; sequence in Feng Shui&nbsp; - heck, or even Dread, a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&amp;D, this just doesn't become a problem.&nbsp; What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology.&nbsp;Sure, those two examples are pretty extreme, and I don't think anyone's advocating going that light.&nbsp; But it is a phenomenon that a game with large amounts of game terminology (keywords, skill names, etc.) will tend to become more mired in that terminology as a method of communication rather than using natural language to describe actions.&nbsp;The example above of &quot;Perception check on the door&quot; is a good one.&nbsp; Sure, it's a simple example and of course you can say &quot;I listen at the door for movement on the other side&quot;&nbsp; or &quot;I carefully examine the door for hints of traps&quot; instead, but often people don't; and that's to do with the system, not the people.&nbsp;I've seen the very same people play two different games, and seen this phenomenon.&nbsp; The argument that it's the group's fault starts to fall a little thin there, when the exact same people manifest different terminology of interaction with two different games makes it clear that the rules structure is a factor in this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 5900405, member: 1"] There are plenty of rules-light systems out there, and it doesn't tend to manifest that way. It becomes a ore organic, natural exchange of information: "Does that wall look hard to climb?" "it's pretty slippery and there are few handholds; it looks pretty difficult to you." If you compare an "action" sequence in [I]Feng Shui[/I] - heck, or even [I]Dread[/I], a game with almost no rules at all - to a rules-heavy system like D&D, this just doesn't become a problem. What happens is that there's a lot more description and imagination flying round the table than there is game terminology. Sure, those two examples are pretty extreme, and I don't think anyone's advocating going that light. But it is a phenomenon that a game with large amounts of game terminology (keywords, skill names, etc.) will tend to become more mired in that terminology as a method of communication rather than using natural language to describe actions. The example above of "Perception check on the door" is a good one. Sure, it's a simple example and of course you can say "I listen at the door for movement on the other side" or "I carefully examine the door for hints of traps" instead, but often people don't; and that's to do with the system, not the people. I've seen the very same people play two different games, and seen this phenomenon. The argument that it's the group's fault starts to fall a little thin there, when the exact same people manifest different terminology of interaction with two different games makes it clear that the rules structure[I] is[/I] a factor in this. [/QUOTE]

Verification