Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1851532" data-attributes="member: 23012">For some reason, you seem to assume that &quot;more general&quot; means &quot;less defined&quot;.I assure you, this assumption is completely unwarranted.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> Imagine a very simple legal system: any violent crime is punished with death; any property crime is punished with a prison term of 10 years.This is a very &quot;lite&quot; legal system.&nbsp; It is very general.&nbsp; But it is not lacking in &quot;definition&quot;!&nbsp;&nbsp; The punishment is very clear for both classes of crimes.It is only when you construct a more complex legal system, with many nuances and caveats, that greater room appears for inconsistencies, as well as a greater need for &quot;judgement calls&quot;.But you see, it is possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved.&nbsp; They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a greater number of cases.I direct you back to my earlier post, where I contrasted two different ways to resolve non-combat tasks (a 'rules lite' system, and a 'rules heavy-ish' system).&nbsp; Nothing you have said rebuts the force of that example.&nbsp; Or check out my even 'liter' system below. Sorry, but is not a fact.&nbsp; Again, you can have a very parsimonious and consistent rules system.&nbsp; E.g. Imagine a game in which all mental tasks are resolved by making a &quot;mind&quot; ability score roll, and all physical tasks are resolved by making a &quot;body&quot; ability score roll.&nbsp; Here we have a very simple system -- two ability scores, and two ways in which these scores are used to resolve different tasks. I fail to see why such a system is any less &quot;consistent&quot; than 3E D&amp;D.&nbsp; Sure, I suppose you have to make a &quot;judgement call&quot; as to whether breaking down a door is a &quot;mental&quot; or &quot;physical&quot; task -- but you also have to make these kinds of (usually obvious) judgement calls in 3E.Of course, this is a completely separate issue.But sure, if you define you character primarily by stats, rules-lite games will not be your thing.&nbsp; Other players prefer to define their characters primarily by personalities, backgrounds, goals, and so forth.&nbsp; Those kinds of players are less bothered by the &quot;fewer widgets&quot;.&nbsp; In fact, &quot;fewer widgets&quot; can sometimes promote improvisation and creativity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 1851532, member: 23012"] For some reason, you seem to assume that "more general" means "less defined". I assure you, this assumption is [I]completely[/I] unwarranted. :cool: Imagine a very simple legal system: any violent crime is punished with death; any property crime is punished with a prison term of 10 years. This is a very "lite" legal system. It is very general. But it is [I]not[/I] lacking in "definition"! The punishment is very clear for both classes of crimes. It is only when you construct a more complex legal system, with many nuances and caveats, that greater room appears for inconsistencies, as well as a greater need for "judgement calls". But you see, it [I]is[/I] possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved. They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a [I]greater number [/I] of cases. I direct you back to my earlier post, where I contrasted two different ways to resolve non-combat tasks (a 'rules lite' system, and a 'rules heavy-ish' system). Nothing you have said rebuts the force of that example. Or check out my even 'liter' system below. Sorry, but is [I]not[/I] a fact. Again, you can have a very parsimonious [I]and [/I] consistent rules system. E.g. Imagine a game in which [I]all [/I] mental tasks are resolved by making a "mind" ability score roll, and [I]all [/I] physical tasks are resolved by making a "body" ability score roll. Here we have a very simple system -- two ability scores, and two ways in which these scores are used to resolve different tasks. I fail to see why such a system is any less "consistent" than 3E D&D. Sure, I suppose you have to make a "judgement call" as to whether breaking down a door is a "mental" or "physical" task -- but you also have to make these kinds of (usually obvious) judgement calls in 3E. Of course, this is a [I]completely[/I] separate issue. But sure, if you define you character primarily by stats, rules-lite games will not be your thing. Other players prefer to define their characters primarily by personalities, backgrounds, goals, and so forth. Those kinds of players are less bothered by the "fewer widgets". In fact, "fewer widgets" can sometimes promote improvisation and creativity. [/QUOTE]

Verification