Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jonesy" data-source="post: 5260504" data-attributes="member: 10324">It's not intuitive at all. They mean completely different things. There seems to be a disconnect here about the different terms. How can there be a debate about a subject when everyone seems to use a different set of meanings on what the subject is actually about.Rules are, at the same time, options and restrictions. They are options in that they give suggestions for the players and their characters on possible methods of interacting with the environment they are in. They are restrictions in that they give suggestions on how hard those things are to accomplish, and how far they can realistically bend (realistically according to the setting), and how possible it might be for the characters to actually redefine them or outright break the perceived limits.Rules should never be requirements, and always guidelines.You are confusing the terms. Games that are very open have the most options. They also have the least rules, and therefore the least suggestions on what is possible. An open game is therefore about how inventive the players are in making those suggestions themselves. Idea rich group in an open game equals a ton of options. Idea poor group... nothing much happens. This is certainly not to say that some groups are better at playing a game than others, just that different styles suit different groups better. What you are saying is that you prefer games with a ton of suggestions.Groups who heavily houserule base their game on a set rules that doesn't suit them. Doesn't matter how little or much there are of them.That's why they are called houserules. That is a self-created problem. If you heavily houserule a game, then you are no longer playing that game, but rather one you've invented. Why would there be an expectation that others would be playing that as well?But knowing how hard jumping over a ditch actually is is not realistic. You never definitively know. Unless you've lived there. Unless you've jumped across it a number of times. Unless you've done it with gear similar to what you have. Unless you know how weather has affected it's structure. Unless you know how the terraing usually behaves. Unless you have a home field advantage.Being fully featured is in itself unrealistic. We have no idea what the rules are for the real world. We may never know. All we have is guidelines. Things we know up to a point. Trying to make game mechanics that describe an action as realistic as possible is pointless anyway, because there is no reason why the characters should ever know them that well. Unless it's someone who's dedicated his life to knowing that particular thing. Like an athlete. But you know what? Even then there's no reason for the character to definitively know. Nobody knows things that well.This, to me, is the only mandatory purpose of a rules system. And when you think about it, this is fluff. This is the setting. So the "core" rules have always been nothing but guidelines to me. A safety net to fall back on when you need one. Suggestions on how to handle the mechanics of situations.Suggestions are options. Rules are ways to handle those options. And as such, also options. But mostly restrictions in that they restrict other methods of handling those options. Confused yet? Good. Welcome to the uncertainty of real characters. This is the battleground of freedom vs safety. Follow the rules or make your own. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification