Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

[jgbrowning]

Yes, that does make things clearer, thanks. It seems that the disagreement here has largely proceeded from differences in the use of words. No doubt (early) Wittgenstein would be amused.

heh...

What I understood 'ad hoccing' to involve was precisely coming up with rules in a system that had no (or inadequate) 'guidelines'.

If ad hoccing is simply the application of 'design guidelines' to specific cases, them I'm all in favour of it, and don't understand how anyone could view it as a problem.

It's problematic because the outcomes are not equal in %success/failure chance from one situation/GM to another. A well-designed game reduces "internal inconsistancy," mostly because it reduces the amount of rule-debates that occur.

For instance, when was the last time you heard people argue about how a Chess Bishop can move? Most rule-debates are only because of unclear rules, because someone is being forced to "game design" on the fly and the other person disagrees with the ad hoc design's outcome, or because a GM has ad hocced differently before and forgot the previous precedent.

joe b.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't think anyone views it in itself as a problem. Some do, however, want to minimize it either within the ruleset or, alternatively, expand the ruleset when an ad hoc situation comes up. Both of these lead to a larger number of rules within the system, and it is up to indivudual tastes to determine how much is too much and how much is too little.

Someone who wants to make less ad hoc ruling is going to like longer stat blocks, because information is given and found easily. There's less need to make things up when an unforseen situation comes up, like needing the BAB of a creature when only the total attack modifier is listed. I'm like that, and thus I prefer the longer stat blocks. Someone who doesn't mind making up a BAB on the spot won't need it included.