Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5890368" data-attributes="member: 3400">There's an interesting interplay between ideas in game design here, I think. Leaving things open, taking a rules-lite approach, allows for the greatest degree of freedom, I believe, in the execution and thus the greatest potential t handle anything that comes the referee's way. That's one reason I believe there has often been relatively little rule support for both social interaction and exploration. The potential uses that these could be put to are so wide and varied. Applying rule structure would restrict those options - box them in - like we usually see in combat.Combat is also usually pretty varied, but if you look at the options available based on the rules, you realize that they put the characters in a set of boxes and restrict what they can do. Even 4e's tables on Page 42 serve that purpose. Sure, you can try a lot of actions, but you're boxed in to the results those actions can achieve. You don't get as boxed in when the rules give you less structure to limit you.On the other hand, player behavior needs to be taken into account. The surest way to get players to behave a certain way is to include structures on that subject area. There's a recent article on The Alexandrian that delves into this: <a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15192/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-10-incomplete-game-structures" target="_blank">Game Structures – Part 10: Incomplete Game Structures</a>. Include a structure and, sure enough, players will find a way to use it even if the end result is actually limiting rather than liberating. I suspect it's partly because the players feel their actions in that area will be predictably rewarded due to the structure, rather than have to rely on wheedling whatever they can get out of the DM. (So I wonder how much this plays into the idea that D&amp;D is about &quot;Killing things and taking their stuff&quot; or is nothing more than a &quot;combat game&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5890368, member: 3400"] There's an interesting interplay between ideas in game design here, I think. Leaving things open, taking a rules-lite approach, allows for the greatest degree of freedom, I believe, in the execution and thus the greatest potential t handle anything that comes the referee's way. That's one reason I believe there has often been relatively little rule support for both social interaction and exploration. The potential uses that these could be put to are so wide and varied. Applying rule structure would restrict those options - box them in - like we usually see in combat. Combat is also usually pretty varied, but if you look at the options available based on the rules, you realize that they put the characters in a set of boxes and restrict what they can do. Even 4e's tables on Page 42 serve that purpose. Sure, you can try a lot of actions, but you're boxed in to the results those actions can achieve. You don't get as boxed in when the rules give you less structure to limit you. On the other hand, player behavior needs to be taken into account. The surest way to get players to behave a certain way is to include structures on that subject area. There's a recent article on The Alexandrian that delves into this: [url=http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15192/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-10-incomplete-game-structures]Game Structures – Part 10: Incomplete Game Structures[/url]. Include a structure and, sure enough, players will find a way to use it even if the end result is actually limiting rather than liberating. I suspect it's partly because the players feel their actions in that area will be predictably rewarded due to the structure, rather than have to rely on wheedling whatever they can get out of the DM. (So I wonder how much this plays into the idea that D&D is about "Killing things and taking their stuff" or is nothing more than a "combat game".) [/QUOTE]

Verification