Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5079557" data-attributes="member: 66434">This is a good topic worthy of it's  own thread. I thought it would be best to get it out of the edition war thread.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> howandwhy99 wrote"My own preference is for a more traditional D&D type game, meaning it is an elaborate pattern finding game engaging the players logical reasoning abilities as the foremost activity of play. In this game all the rules fit on a single page or so for every player to know, but the rules hidden behind the screen to be guessed, those created by the referee, are as complex, elegant, mystifying, and pleasurable as he or she can create."   Lostsoul wrote"I find this fascinating - maybe better forked to another thread.What do you think the effect on player choice is in this scenario? In order to make meaningful decisions you need to have some information... could you go so far as to say that the game is about getting to know the DM's worldview?" This is an interesting topic because player choice as it relates to the feel of the game largely depends on what those choices are based on.  A heavy codified ruleset known to all participants provides a huge common ground of basic assumptions which are shared. A great deal of this knowledge can be considered metagame knowledge for the benefit of the player. Player decisions can then be largely driven by this knowledge. Depending on the rules used, such knowledge may conflict greatly with logic and/or the decision that would be chosen by a character in a given situation in which the metagame knowledge was unknown.  This type of rules structure can lead to a very binary and unimaginative game. With the rules clearly laid out and optimal choices readily apparent, the trap of optimal decision making patterns is easy to fall into making one game so very much like another that the differences are immaterial. The DM unless he/she alters the shared known rules openly is bound to reward those same optimal decisions again and again if running a fair game.  A rules light system provides much less in the way of common assumptions for all. The mechanics cover only the most basic aspects of play with the remainder to be filled in by the DM depending on the feel of game that he/she is going for.  The effect of this style of game on player decision making is huge. Without a huge repository of metagame knowledge to draw upon, player choices are more likely to be made from the perspective of the character. This makes player choice more meaningful IMHO rather than less. More meaningful as I see it translates to choosing the most reasonable option in a given situation based on known quantities at the time. If all the metagame mechanical consequences are known before a decision is made then the only decision to be made is to choose the route of optimal success, the route of failure, and possibly some branching paths of limited success or failure. In any event, not choosing the route of optimal success is choosing to fail to a greater or lesser degree for whatever reason. With all options and their respective success chances laid out beforehand most decisions can be made on autopilot. How is this somehow meaningful?  A lot of the conflict I have seen in games between DM's and players has come from DM's running a heavy complex rules set and expecting players to make decisions as if the rules (and thus the optimal choices) were invisible. If the decisions made by the players are to be based in common sense and logic then the rules (hidden or not) need to based on such principles.</blockquote>

Verification