Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9429951" data-attributes="member: 4937">One of the big problems that crunchy systems can run into is attempting to assert rules to govern interactions in the system where those interactions have a lot of edge cases that don't model the assumed reality very well.&nbsp; A good example is the conceptually sound system 3e has for modeling breaking inanimate objects fails to take into account the massive damage PCs can generate at moderate to high level, allowing for example a person to by the rules easily tunnel through solid stone with their bare hands.&nbsp; A less rules crunchy system that defaults to, &quot;If in the opinion of the GM the proposed action is impossible, it automatically fails.&quot; doesn't have a problem where PCs discover that they can burrow through things more effectively than Shai-Halud.Thus crunchy systems always end up with a problem of having to recognize that regardless of what inherent facts that they assumed, the rules that they give are the physics of the game universe.&nbsp; This tends to result in having to add yet more crunch to cover the cases that they didn't cover, leading to more and more complexity and rules to understand.&nbsp; That's the flaw in crunchy design.Of course, this isn't to say that rules light designs are inherently better.&nbsp; At least two problems exist in a non-crunchy design that are at least as bad.&nbsp; First, if you don't state your facts you leave them up to interpretation and quite often there will be meaningful disagreements over what is realistic.&nbsp; Leaving things up to realism or what is appropriate to genre doesn't reduce table arguments; it increases them.&nbsp; And secondly, without guidelines GMs have a tendency to default to either &quot;Just say yes&quot; or &quot;Just say no&quot;, both of which lead to pretty unsatisfying gaming experiences particularly when there are multiple aesthetics of play going on at the table.&nbsp; For example, &quot;just say yes&quot; tends to diminish the enjoyment of someone who invested resources into being good at something, since they can witness other participants wheedling the same or larger advantages out of the GM by getting them to say &quot;yes&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; While &quot;just say no&quot; tends to reduce player creativity and immersion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9429951, member: 4937"] One of the big problems that crunchy systems can run into is attempting to assert rules to govern interactions in the system where those interactions have a lot of edge cases that don't model the assumed reality very well. A good example is the conceptually sound system 3e has for modeling breaking inanimate objects fails to take into account the massive damage PCs can generate at moderate to high level, allowing for example a person to by the rules easily tunnel through solid stone with their bare hands. A less rules crunchy system that defaults to, "If in the opinion of the GM the proposed action is impossible, it automatically fails." doesn't have a problem where PCs discover that they can burrow through things more effectively than Shai-Halud. Thus crunchy systems always end up with a problem of having to recognize that regardless of what inherent facts that they assumed, the rules that they give are the physics of the game universe. This tends to result in having to add yet more crunch to cover the cases that they didn't cover, leading to more and more complexity and rules to understand. That's the flaw in crunchy design. Of course, this isn't to say that rules light designs are inherently better. At least two problems exist in a non-crunchy design that are at least as bad. First, if you don't state your facts you leave them up to interpretation and quite often there will be meaningful disagreements over what is realistic. Leaving things up to realism or what is appropriate to genre doesn't reduce table arguments; it increases them. And secondly, without guidelines GMs have a tendency to default to either "Just say yes" or "Just say no", both of which lead to pretty unsatisfying gaming experiences particularly when there are multiple aesthetics of play going on at the table. For example, "just say yes" tends to diminish the enjoyment of someone who invested resources into being good at something, since they can witness other participants wheedling the same or larger advantages out of the GM by getting them to say "yes". While "just say no" tends to reduce player creativity and immersion. [/QUOTE]

Verification