Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4032535" data-attributes="member: 5100">I've got a player who will, subconsciously and without malice, try to figure out the &quot;wiring&quot; of any encounter/event he doesn't immediately understand.&nbsp; I do the same thing to him, so I can't complain too much.&nbsp; The point is, though, that if there's a rule that says &quot;the numbers are supposed to add up&quot; there a a few geeks who expect the numbers to add up -- even if it's subconscious and comes from spending 40+ hours a week designing and coding financial software (no numbers there, uh-uh, and we're never expected to have things add up).&nbsp; Because of that, I think I'm actually going to appreciate having rules that strongly imply, if not explicitly state, &quot;don't look behind the curtain.&quot;There are elements in RPGs that are well served by detailed rules and there are areas that are simply bogged down by them.&nbsp; I've played systems that tried to over-engineer combat (e.g. Phoenix Command) and systems that tried to over-engineer character background and &quot;soft&quot; bits (e.g. Aria).&nbsp; Either one can make a game unplayable or require selectively ignoring rules.&nbsp; I've also played games that under-developed various areas (e.g. WoD and 1E, though I enjoyed both).&nbsp; That leads to a lot of GM fiat and arbitrary calls that may not match what the players thought they were signing up for.&nbsp; Oddly, I think 3.5E was too heavy in some areas (mostly combat, skills, NPCs, treasures, and other DM prep work), too light in others (like how to handle diplomatic encounters), and, impossible though it seems, both at once in others (traps, IMO).There's a happy medium between too much rules definition and too little.&nbsp; And that balance varies from element to element.&nbsp; I very much doubt that any system will get it exactly right.&nbsp; There probably isn't any &quot;right&quot;, because different groups and people have different styles.&nbsp; My hope is that 4E comes a lot closer to giving me (and most groups) what I (and they) want than 3x did.Don't get me wrong.&nbsp; I think 3x is a huge improvement, in many, many ways over 1/2E.&nbsp; Over the last 12 or so months, though, the warts have become increasingly apparent to me.&nbsp; So apparent that I've come to think of 3e as an incomplete game.&nbsp; Most component changes were an improvement by most standards, but the whole ended up being less playable than 1/2E.I know that sounds a bit contradictory, but it isn't.&nbsp; It's a bit like my friend's project of building a home theater.&nbsp; He framed the walls, ran the electrical, drywalled the walls, etc.&nbsp; He hosted a New Year's party and stuck up a screen and set out deck chairs.&nbsp; The whole thing was pretty darn cool, totally functional, and it was a blast to watch movies in there.&nbsp; But, it wasn't done.&nbsp; Had he left it like that, it would have worked better than the living room TV, from a certain perspective.&nbsp; But, the deck chairs, lack of paint and carpet, and so forth would eventually suck the coolness out of it -- a comfy couch goes a long way.&nbsp; So, he's now pulled the screen, projector, etc. out of the room so that he can add acoustics, decor, etc.&nbsp; When it's all done, it'll be vastly improved over the living room.&nbsp; The middle ground was functional, and probably would have kept some people happy for a very long time.&nbsp; That doesn't mean the refinement isn't even better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 4032535, member: 5100"] I've got a player who will, subconsciously and without malice, try to figure out the "wiring" of any encounter/event he doesn't immediately understand. I do the same thing to him, so I can't complain too much. The point is, though, that if there's a rule that says "the numbers are supposed to add up" there a a few geeks who expect the numbers to add up -- even if it's subconscious and comes from spending 40+ hours a week designing and coding financial software (no numbers there, uh-uh, and we're never expected to have things add up). Because of that, I think I'm actually going to appreciate having rules that strongly imply, if not explicitly state, "don't look behind the curtain." There are elements in RPGs that are well served by detailed rules and there are areas that are simply bogged down by them. I've played systems that tried to over-engineer combat (e.g. Phoenix Command) and systems that tried to over-engineer character background and "soft" bits (e.g. Aria). Either one can make a game unplayable or require selectively ignoring rules. I've also played games that under-developed various areas (e.g. WoD and 1E, though I enjoyed both). That leads to a lot of GM fiat and arbitrary calls that may not match what the players thought they were signing up for. Oddly, I think 3.5E was too heavy in some areas (mostly combat, skills, NPCs, treasures, and other DM prep work), too light in others (like how to handle diplomatic encounters), and, impossible though it seems, both at once in others (traps, IMO). There's a happy medium between too much rules definition and too little. And that balance varies from element to element. I very much doubt that any system will get it exactly right. There probably isn't any "right", because different groups and people have different styles. My hope is that 4E comes a lot closer to giving me (and most groups) what I (and they) want than 3x did. Don't get me wrong. I think 3x is a huge improvement, in many, many ways over 1/2E. Over the last 12 or so months, though, the warts have become increasingly apparent to me. So apparent that I've come to think of 3e as an incomplete game. Most component changes were an improvement by most standards, but the whole ended up being less playable than 1/2E. I know that sounds a bit contradictory, but it isn't. It's a bit like my friend's project of building a home theater. He framed the walls, ran the electrical, drywalled the walls, etc. He hosted a New Year's party and stuck up a screen and set out deck chairs. The whole thing was pretty darn cool, totally functional, and it was a blast to watch movies in there. But, it wasn't done. Had he left it like that, it would have worked better than the living room TV, from a certain perspective. But, the deck chairs, lack of paint and carpet, and so forth would eventually suck the coolness out of it -- a comfy couch goes a long way. So, he's now pulled the screen, projector, etc. out of the room so that he can add acoustics, decor, etc. When it's all done, it'll be vastly improved over the living room. The middle ground was functional, and probably would have kept some people happy for a very long time. That doesn't mean the refinement isn't even better. [/QUOTE]

Verification