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: 2412687" data-attributes="member: 32164">Ah, well, my favorite terms are "Dungeon Master" (for its legacy) and the far more descriptive "Referee." The primary purpose of the DM is to adjudicate the game. His job is to challenge his players WITHIN the scope of the rules. I don't see RPGs as a strict improvisational theater activity, and storytelling games with no resolution mechanic hold no appeal to me. Allow me to state my position: a game has to have a randomizer with pre-determined consequences or it's not a game. Some games have player choice as the only randomizer (chess, for example). Most add an additional randomizer to player choice.The choice method only works if there are pre-determined consequences. When I move a piece in chess, certain risks are spelled out (the threat from other pieces). If the other player could simply make up rules to cover every situation, it's not really a game anymore. It might still be fun (Calvinball, anyone?), but it's more an exercise in interaction than a game.I'd also like to clarify what I meant by the term "squidgy." Squidgy is, in my mind, mildly inconsistent. If sliding down a banister on a skateboard is a DC 15 balance check one time, the same banister should be the same DC the next time or there'd better be a reason it isn't. This is not about "reality simulation" it's about a consistent, logical experience.You can't use the argument that "an unreasonable DM can make hash of a rules-heavy system" as a counter to "a reasonable, but imperfect, DM can make hash of a rules light system." The former may be an accurate statement, but it doesn't address the claim in the latter. Obviously, a perfect, reasonable DM can run both with no problems. Personally, both as a player and a DM, am more concerned about reasonable, imperfect DMs than I am about unreasonable DMs, who I simply refuse to game with.I think the rules-heavier side, like me, is arguing the latter point - that a reasonable, but imperfect (i.e. human) DM can make mistakes that wreck the experience for his players if that consistency is important to them. Is there a counter to that other than "I just think it's too complicated for my gaming style?" If so, I'd like to hear it. Personally, that last is my opinion about HERO. It's a fine game, but I find its calculations annoying. I don't need to play HERO though, because there are other games that suit my needs.I think that's why D&D edition wars are so vitriolic. And C&C vs. 3e is basically an edition war. It's "rules-light, classsic feel" D&D vs. "current standard" D&D. And whether I think C&C is rules-light or not isn't relevant (we all agree that term is relative), since its designers claim exactly that. Throw on top of that people accusing each other of not playing the "real game" or not adhering to the "spirit of the game" the way they envision it and it gets nasty quick.I suppose there's something to the argument that some DMs decide it's easier to be "unreasonable" in a rules-heavy system than to actually follow it, but that's either a DM issue, or a system one that needs to be addressed. Obviously, not everyone feels the system is too onerous to follow.And bringing up all the things that other games have rules for that D&D doesn't is another diversion from the topic. Obviously, that means there are areas in which D&D could be considered "rules-light." Near as I can tell, that's intentional. D&D doesn't have rules for everything. It's quite upfront about the fact that it provides more rules for some situations (like combat), less for others (like interacting with NPCs), and covers some not at all from a rules point of view. For example, it mostly provides "guidelines" for politics as opposed to actual rules. Personally, I don't need detailed discussions of NPC behavior - as a human, I can understand human behavior reasonably well without a rulebook. I also think that's largely the point of alignment. Rather than going into the complexity of Illithid society and writing a thesis on the psychology of Mind Flayers, the books simply say "Illithids are E-Vil" because that concept, once grasped, makes it pretty easy for the DM to decide how they'll behave in general. To clear it up, the game even spells out what it means when it says good, evil, lawful and chaotic.But all that's just my opinion. Play the game you like to play, but don't tell me I should be happy with a game that doesn't suit my style just because the DM doesn't feel like doing extra work. I may still be enjoying myself enough to play, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm dissatisfied.Guidelines aren't rules - it's that simple. It's true that rules can be used as guidelines, but guidelines aren't as concrete as actual rules.</blockquote>

Verification