NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9681522" data-attributes="member: 7025577">Decign and principles are hard. If this principle as formulated here the game "Flip a coin whenever you are unsure" would be more complete than any of the mainstream RPGs. I actually think all post TSR D&D variants and their closest relatives have had minimising GM rulings as a virtue. However this need to be balanced against other concerns. For instance detailed rules for certain actions make these actions feel better in play, but it increases the need for GM rulings for the actions not covered compared to a bland generic system. So just by introducing action based rules you have made a sacrifice with regard to your completeness ideal. Your proposal appear to be to adding on even more action rules in order to reduce the number of cases where GM rulings are needed/problematic. And while this indeed can work, the more you do it the more you sacrifice a different design principle: Simplicity and ease of play. And you seem to acknowledge that you won't be able to get to perfection anyway..Modern trad game design is a balancing act between ease of use and granularity/richness. The way it try to counter GM rulings is not to increase granularity, but rather to make the grains fit as tightly together as possible, covering as much of the posibility space as possible given the desired level on the ease/richness scale.so if you throw ease of use out of the window you easily can go to quite a bit higher granularity than today's mainstream, and with that increased granularity you might be in a position to provide better coverage than the less granular. But even this has an important limitation: if you become too granular the risk of significant overlap also increases. I guess you would agree that an "overcomplete" system where the GM has to chose between 3 different described actions that might fit the situation is as bad as the situation where the situation is not fitting any of the described actions? Have you heard about flux? Is that a TTRPG? Or if the range of victory conditions for that is not broad enough - have you heard of the card game MAO? (That one is an interesting case study, as that is also somewhat conforming to my attempt at defining a core aspect of TTRPG)I think it is hard to get away from a player controlling a single fictional entity as a requirement for something to be considered a TTRPG. However with this in place I think our attempts at formulating "the rest" might be so that my requirement is slightly stricter than your. I think an unlimited set of possible actions will imply that the form can support updatable win conditions. I can however envision limited action games that do support updatable victory conditions. If such a hypotetical game seem to satisfy your thirst for TTRPGing, I have no objections to that. For me however I think I would feel like something essential is missing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But I guess I could accept that the result would be distinct from what I would naturally talk about as a "board game". So you seem to be pointing to something essential.</blockquote>

Verification