Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9315909" data-attributes="member: 4937">But you aren't addressing the question of why the rules would or wouldn't get in the way.The rules don't really get in the way of combat in the game.&nbsp; In fact, they do the opposite.&nbsp; The rules of combat are more abstract than the combat itself, but they are much less abstract than doing combat as improvisational theater at any level less than combat focused LARPing.&nbsp; The rules of combat are more abstract than combat, but they are much less abstract than having the players talk out the combat.&nbsp; As Brennan put it, he needs some mechanism to tell him about the flight of the arrow.&nbsp; He doesn't want the rules for the flight of the arrow to be abstract because he doesn't care about the combat.&nbsp; He wants the rules about the flight of the arrow because they are more concrete than talking out how the arrow flies.&nbsp; The more rules we add, the less abstract the combat becomes.&nbsp; We might choose a rules light combat game because we don't really care about combat.But the opposite happens with a social play.&nbsp; The least abstract way to play out a social interaction is to play out the social interaction as improvisational theater.&nbsp; The more rules we would add to that situation the more abstract it becomes and the less like the thing itself it becomes.&nbsp; So for a tabletop roleplaying game that restricts itself to not getting out actual weapons and trying to hit each other with them (and for which that wouldn't be a very good abstraction of a hero fighting a dragon anyway), the least abstract system is one that is crunchy in combat but rules light in social play.It's not at all arbitrary that you are better off not having rules for social play as compared to combat.&nbsp; If that thing was combat that you wanted to be the focus of the game, you would not be better off without rules - unless well you really wanted to limit yourself to HEMA inspired LARPing with swords and armor and therefore didn't need dice mechanics because those would be more abstract.We can take this argument further and ask, &quot;Why might a stealth system be more abstract than talking it out?&quot; or &quot;What is different between stealth and combat?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9315909, member: 4937"] But you aren't addressing the question of why the rules would or wouldn't get in the way. The rules don't really get in the way of combat in the game. In fact, they do the opposite. The rules of combat are more abstract than the combat itself, but they are much less abstract than doing combat as improvisational theater at any level less than combat focused LARPing. The rules of combat are more abstract than combat, but they are much less abstract than having the players talk out the combat. As Brennan put it, he needs some mechanism to tell him about the flight of the arrow. He doesn't want the rules for the flight of the arrow to be abstract because he doesn't care about the combat. He wants the rules about the flight of the arrow because they are more concrete than talking out how the arrow flies. The more rules we add, the less abstract the combat becomes. We might choose a rules light combat game because we don't really care about combat. But the opposite happens with a social play. The least abstract way to play out a social interaction is to play out the social interaction as improvisational theater. The more rules we would add to that situation the more abstract it becomes and the less like the thing itself it becomes. So for a tabletop roleplaying game that restricts itself to not getting out actual weapons and trying to hit each other with them (and for which that wouldn't be a very good abstraction of a hero fighting a dragon anyway), the least abstract system is one that is crunchy in combat but rules light in social play. It's not at all arbitrary that you are better off not having rules for social play as compared to combat. If that thing was combat that you wanted to be the focus of the game, you would not be better off without rules - unless well you really wanted to limit yourself to HEMA inspired LARPing with swords and armor and therefore didn't need dice mechanics because those would be more abstract. We can take this argument further and ask, "Why might a stealth system be more abstract than talking it out?" or "What is different between stealth and combat?" [/QUOTE]

Verification