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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2283699" data-attributes="member: 10201">To me, they don't (vary greatly). That was the point. I had previously thought that you would consider them significantly different, based on our discussions. [And, yes, the dicepool should be ignored--i simply was pulling an existing system out of my head, rather than try to invent a hypothetical that was completely devoid of baggage.]OK, i think i see the difference in our POVs. Let us assume, for the moment, that all of the various modifiers and DCs in D&D3E were arrived at by applying a consistent set of basic underlying rules, and that there are no exceptions. Moreover, let's assume that those are "reasonable" principles, ones that we would agree upon, and apply in our own games.Given those precepts, i consider the game with just the basic modifier principles given, and the game with all those principles applied and pre-calced for a lot of common situations (but the underlying principles themselves not ennumerated) to be functionally equivalent in terms of fidelity to the setting/genre being emulated. Even if the underlying principles are as simple as "any (dis)advantage significant enough to merit notice is worth +/-2; a really major (dis)advantage is worth +/-4" (which *does* seem to be the underlying rule in D&d3E).Now, i suspect we've already parted company to some degree: if i've read you right, you've said that your experience is that the game that spells all that out, rather than just giving the guiding principle, will be more consistent. However, here's where i think we really disagree. IMHO, once a ruleset has reached the level of detail of D&D3E (or Storyteller, or any of a number of other systems), it has obfuscated those underlying principles due to exceptions, and/or just plain gotten inconsistent in the process of elaboration. OK, that's the general statement; now i'm going to get specifically on D&D3E's case, because it's a useful point of common reference. If it has a consistent set of common principles, i can't see them. It looks wildly inconsistent to me. To take two specific examples off the top of my head: skill DCs (most skills start at DC10 or DC15 for "easy" tasks; lockpicking starts at DC20 for an "easy" lock), and combat actions (standing from prone is no AoO, many less-difficult tasks are yes AoO)*. So, my experience is that complex/detailed/elaborated systems produce inconsistent results, even before the GM gets in there. Contrariwise, IME, given a simple-enough set of basic principles to keep in my head, i can produce results that are not merely as consistent as, but actually more consistent than, an elaborated ruleset. And this may be a playstyle issue, or just one of communication on the forum here, but i think the other difference is in how we play. In my group, rulings are kept consistent not because the GM has a phenomenal memory, but because the group, collectively, has a sufficient memory. That is, the GM doesn't need to remember how it was done last time, because one of the players will usually remember. And if no one remembers, then no one is aware of any inconsistency, so it doesn't matter if it's consistent. Do i understand you correctly that your experience is that a GM will make a ruling in a rules-lite game that is inconsistent, the player(s) will be aware of this, and they will either not speak up, or will speak up but the GM will ignore them? Yeesh--i can see how that would put a bad taste in your mouth.*And, yes, i'm aware that D&D3.5E fixed that. Whether it was an error or a poor design decision in 3E is irrelevant to my point--the point is that the inconsistency got in there, not how it got there.</blockquote>

Verification