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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2283317" data-attributes="member: 23012">Okay, I think I have a better understanding of your overall position now.    <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    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />  That caveat is pretty important.  If the rules already establish the desired level of 'fidelity' (e.g. they are generally 'good enough' for the group in question in 'modeling' the nature of 'Middle-Earth', or whatever), then it is, if anything, probably easier to be consistent with a rules light system than a rules heavy system.What attracts many GMs and players to rules light systems, IME, is a desire to stop 'sweating the details' (e.g. adding up endless modifiers, etc.), and 'get on with the game/story'.  Hence they are less likely to introduce ad hoc 'fiddly' modifiers in particular situations in order to 'simulate' those situations better.  This is what you refer to as 'fidelity'.  Since the desired level of fidelity has already been achieved by the rules, for the most part, then IME GMs have not been any more arbitrary in their rules light games than they have been in their rules heavy games. So according to your view, games can achieve varying degrees of:(a.) Fidelity (detail provided in order to simulate, or provide information about, the game world in question);(b.) Consistency (consistent rules/guidelines for relevant situations).The more 'rules light' a game is, the more it has to 'sacrifice' one of these features (or some combination of both).I don't think I disagree with this -- in fact, it looks right.  And I guess the source of my disagreement with your earlier claims is based on what I said above, namely, that many 'rules light' GMs are not overly concerned with achieving a high level of fidelity, whereas you seem to be assuming that they are (and thus are willing to sacrifice consistency).</blockquote>

Verification