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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2394786" data-attributes="member: 32164">I disagree. It's not an illusion. Obviously the GM has absolute power during the game, but in a game that covers more situations with stated guidelines (and that's how I see most of the "complex" 3e rules - elaborate guidelines that are intended to make the game more consistent), the players can hold their DM accountable for his squidgy rulings in those areas. If he makes no squidgy rulings, all is well. If he does, he can either a) correct things so that he makes fewer of them in the future, or b) choose to keep making squidgy rulings which will eventually cost him players.In a rules-light game, that element of accountability is utterly absent. Player's choices are entirely dependent on what the GM chooses to allow, unless it's covered by the rules. That's an enormous distinction. If the GM chooses to arbitrarily change the rules and limit a player's choices, that's his prerogative, but then he's running a rules-heavy game as a rules-light one. But at least the player has some idea of the consequences of his actions.When I play, I'm after a roleplaying game, not just an immersive storytelling exercise. I want a story with conflict, the chance to make choices that affect the outcome and a resolution system that I can understand. Moreover, I want to know how my choices affect that resolution system. Any "choices" I have or make that lack rules consequences aren't meaningful choices in the context of the game. Obviously, I can "roleplay" them, but that goes back to a storytelling exercise. Now, I admit there are levels of complexity that seem unnecessary to me, and I freely admit the appropriate level of complexity is a matter of personal choice. From a mechanical perspective, the choices available to fighter players under some of the rules-lighter versions of d20 are...uninspiring to say the least.Mike Mearls talked about this duality in RPGs on the Iron Heroes thread. There's two aspects to roleplaying games - "story" and "rules." The two are clearly linked, but it's a falacy to suggest story solutions to rules issues, or vice versa. If I may be so bold, I think that's why people seem to be able to "game" roleplaying flaws so easily - they take a story penalty in exchange for a rules advantage. That's pretty problematic...Of course, I may just be talking out of my butt.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification