Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2282603" data-attributes="member: 23012">Um ... I never claimed that GM adjudication in rules light games can't be inconsistent.&nbsp; I don't know where you are getting that.&nbsp; :\ &nbsp;I did claim that GM adjudication need not be inconsistent, or any more inconsistent that it is in rules heavy games.&nbsp;Well, my use of the word &quot;necessarily&quot; emerged because of how your phrased the issue.&nbsp; Let me quote what you said in an earlier post:I substituted &quot;necessarily&quot; for your use of the words &quot;must&quot; and &quot;require&quot; -- but I don't think that doing so involved any distortion in meaning.&nbsp;Sorry for being a bit thick, but I am not sure what you are saying here.&nbsp;&nbsp; :\ Ummm ... what do you mean by 'fidelity'?&nbsp; Fidelity to what?&nbsp; If you mean 'accuracy' (i.e. fidelity to 'reality'), then I will concede that some rules heavy systems do have this as a design goal.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, 3.5 D&amp;D is a rules heavy-ish system that does not attempt to model 'reality' -- anything but!&nbsp; The detail in 3.5, as far as I can tell, serves some other function.A moderately rules light system can give relatively general rules to cover all relevant situations that emerge in game play.&nbsp; These rules mean that the resolution of various tasks, etc., will be a bit more 'rough grain' in nature than rules heavy systems (i.e. fewer adding and subtracting of various modifiers, etc.).&nbsp; But this does not make them arbitrary or inconsistent.&nbsp; The extent to which people like or dislike this is, as I think we both agree, a matter of taste.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 2282603, member: 23012"] Um ... I [I]never[/I] claimed that GM adjudication in rules light games [I]can't [/I] be inconsistent. I don't know where you are getting that. :\ I [I]did[/I] claim that GM adjudication [I]need [/I] not be inconsistent, or [I]any more [/I] inconsistent that it is in rules heavy games. Well, my use of the word "necessarily" emerged because of how your phrased the issue. Let me quote what you said in an earlier post: I substituted "necessarily" for your use of the words "must" and "require" -- but I don't think that doing so involved any distortion in meaning. Sorry for being a bit thick, but I am not sure what you are saying here. :\ Ummm ... what do you mean by 'fidelity'? Fidelity to what? If you mean 'accuracy' (i.e. fidelity to 'reality'), then I will concede that [I]some[/I] rules heavy systems [I]do[/I] have this as a design goal. However, 3.5 D&D is a rules heavy-ish system that does not attempt to model 'reality' -- [I]anything but[/I]! The detail in 3.5, as far as I can tell, serves some other function. A moderately rules light system can give relatively general rules to cover all relevant situations that emerge in game play. These rules mean that the resolution of various tasks, etc., will be a bit more 'rough grain' in nature than rules heavy systems (i.e. fewer adding and subtracting of various modifiers, etc.). But this does not make them arbitrary or inconsistent. The extent to which people like or dislike this is, as I think we both agree, a matter of taste. [/QUOTE]

Verification