Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7715991" data-attributes="member: 75787">It's a little unhelpful to trim off the part where I stated that the list applies "Focusing specifically on new players experience" and then talk about how the issues I raised go away with experienced players.I guess I kind of took for granted that with high skilled, experienced GMs who have an in-depth knowledge of the system, pretty much any system will work pretty well. Isn't that a basic principle that no-one argues anymore? That's why it's not relevant to make such an assumption and then use that as argument that rules-heavy systems are suitable for an introduction to the game.So let be more explicit: If we're limiting our discussion only to high skilled, experienced GMs who have an in-depth knowledge of the system they are running, I am very willing to agree that they will have no more trouble with a rules-heavy game than a rules-light one. As you say: "if the GM is skilled enough, every system works" -- absolutely. So there is no point even discussing systems for skilled GMs! I think all your objections but one boil down to the suggestion: Always have a skilled, experienced, knowledgable GM, so I'll concentrate on the one that is most interesting:I was thinking about your statement that rules light systems "tend to act like resolution and results don't really matter much", and although my initial reaction was to object, I think I now tend to agree with you. Except that I also think that they don't actually matter that much in any system, taking your definition of matter as having good estimates of "odds of success"I agree with you that in a rules-heavy system with experienced GMs, you are more likely to get that consistency in minor matters: Is ¾ cover worth +2 or +4 on a d20 roll (a difference that will only be meaningful 10% of the time). It may be related to a simulationist bent -- where the consistency of world physics is the most important feature. But for me, even when playing a rules-heavy game, I find that "resolution and results don't really matter much" is very true. Most of the time, when I roll a d20 for an attack in 4E, I know the result without bothering. And if I make a mistake on any roll, does it make a major difference? Nope. So I'd challenge people who think that the added consistency supported by a rules-heavy system is important to ask yourselves: When was the last time it actually made a real difference? Can you think of a situation in the last game you played where if the GM had made even a 25% probability-shifting error one way or another, it would have made a real difference in the story?In my experience, the serious differences that have had major effects in resolution have been exactly the ones where rules-heavy systems give LESS help than rules-light ones. These fall into the "knowing which rule to apply" issue, which is self-obviously harder in rules-heavy games (there's more choice!) and for which no advice is given. Things like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Does Skill X or Skill Y apply to this situation?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Can I use ability Z in this situation?</li> </ul>Frankly, this is where, as a long-time heavy-rules system running GM and player, I find that rules-heavy systems are weakest. Because they have so many rules, it can be very hard to work out which ones apply. And when your GM believes your agile rogue character with +25 Acrobatics has to make a check using their +6 athletics skill instead, that's way more nasty than inconsistent application of a +2 fate aspect bonusAnd if you go to rules-heavy boards, the number of questions related to applicability of an ability are so overwhelming that companies used to have entire teams of customer support answering questions like "can a monk who has polymorphed into a hydra use flurry of blows?" and the like. Essentially, rule zero is particularly hard for rules-heavy games because the GM has to make so many more calls on what to apply. Now you may argue that this doesn't fit into the definition of "rule zero" -- thinking of it as limited to "making up" rules and not including "deciding which to apply". I'm OK with that definition, but the essential point stands -- my belief is that the GM has to make many more game affecting judgement calls in a rules-heavy system than they make game affecting judgement calls in a rules-light system. A long note, because it's an interesting point about rules light versus heavy and judgement calls. It made me think back over a long career of rules decisions and impact to think about what made a difference. It's especially helpful for me, because I've run several rules-heavy campaigns of 300+ hours (Rolemaster, 3.5, 4E) and several rules light ones of equal length (Call of Cthulhu, GUMSHOE) and it made me realize that the details of the resolution process really aren't that often game-affecting. So I've ended up generally supporting your contention, except broadening it to all games: With a reasonably competent GM and players, resolution and results don't really matter much.</blockquote>

Verification