With a 'closed' ruleset, I often fall into the game of "What does the DM/rule designer like?" Once I work out that the designer is a fan of say, Japanese weaponry, I stop thinking about using English broadswords.
Maybe we are talking past each other here, but how is that a problem of closed rulesets particularly? In an open rules set, you still tend to fall into a game of "What does the DM/rule designer like?" and, if the designer is a fan of Japanese weaponry, then you stop thinking about using English broadswords.
If the rules are narrow and your play goals little more than 'optimize my character for combat', you are getting highly constrained either way.
Another problem is once I have taken the risk to find a particular working solution, I am adverse to take a separate risk to test if a different tactic is also workable for a similar situation. I will continue to use a previously winning tactic unless it becomes obvious that the situation is sufficiently different enough to warrant a new set of risks.
I'm at a loss to see how that is a big problem. Isn't that how the real world works? In this case, it is the referee's responcibility to craft sufficiently interesting scenarios that new tactical options are presented to the player. So, maybe shoving an opponent doesn't seem as practical as trying to hit them with a sword, but wait a minute... we are standing right next to a pit. Maybe in this case attempting a push is worth it
even if I don't know what the rules for pushing are and in particular
even if such a stunt is not explicitly defined by the rules.
There are two traps here. If the proposition relates to a rule not explicitly defined, the player is conciously or unconsciously constrained both from thinking of the proposition and from attempting it. If the player doesn't know what rules are defined, they are much more likely to try to attempt a push than if they know that pushing isn't expressly covered. On the other hand, the DM has a responcibility to try to say 'Yes' here. If rules for pushing aren't expressly covered, he has a responcibility to smith rules for such a stunt on the fly. Of course, what the DM wants in this situation is a game system that is broad and flexible enough that coming up with a good rule for a case not in the system based on the system offers is easy, so that from the perspective of the player the player never knows or cares whether its a rule or a house rule being applied in this situation.
For me, roleplay is making decisions as the character would. Having the rules known means I can make those decisions more transparently and thus increase my character's chance of success.
Or not. All you really get knowing the rules is a more transparent and predictable outcome. It's not necessarily a more successful outcome than one you get from thinking out of the box.
Your bias in assuming 'predictable' = 'better chance of success' indicates to me that your stance is informed by having alot of creativity squashed with too much 'saying no'.
A closed system means I have two sets of worry: what should I do in this situation and how will the rules interpret my desire? With an open system, the second concern evaporates.
I think you are wrong. I think the second concern only seems to evaporate solely because you constrain yourself to only make propositions that are couched in the terms of the rules as you understand them. You self-limit yourself from any unpredictableness. You also end up unless you are careful in a highly antagonistic stance, because if what you desire from the game is predictablity, then you end up instead of making propositions to the DM, you make demands of the DM. That is, you instead of stating an intention, end up stating the desired result, and in my experience, players that state desired results instead of proposed actions get really angry when a) the results don't match their intended results and b) the DM is not willing to explain to them why the mysterious results have occured. Essentially, when you move from proposition to goal, you are demanding of the DM that he resolve a particular proposition in the way you expect and desire it to happen. That demand is inherently antagonistic.
That's more of an argument against games with arbitrary gamist artifacts than an open system.
All games have gamist artifacts, whether open or closed. Not knowing what those artifacts are can actually help avoid them.
Stepping into the pillar is certainly possible in a game of 5' squares, but often has a combat penalty (i.e. squeezing).
Why? You've still got 12' of open space behind you. Or, for that matter, if you put your back to the pillar, you've got 12' of open space in front of you. Interpretting the action as 'squeezing' is silly. Where we put the grid is entirely arbitrary. The grid can center anywhere. It's only a conveinent metagame device, and where it gets in the way it should be disposed of. Close systems do that much better than open systems.
1) It provides a reasonably congruent set of outcomes to common sense propositions inside the genre emulated .
I didn't feel the clarification was needed, but yes, obviously. Clearly, jumping out of a 7 story window has a different common sense expectation if you are a 'normal human', than if you are a 'super hero'. If we are explicitly trying to emulate the genera rules of a 'action hero movie', then certain things work by convention that are asking for trouble if the simulation is 'normal people in extraordinary situations'.
I think you missed one and that is a GM/player disconnect as to the game/genre expectations. If the players are playing a comedic superhero game but the GM expects a gritty superhero game, there will be trouble.
I believe it is the DM's job to communicate any misunderstanding about what is common sense regardless of genera or rules setting. There are all sorts of ways to do this, some of which simply involve providing the appropriate in game dressing of the setting so that it is recognizable as 'gritty' or 'comedic' or whatever.
