Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9431617" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'd generally agree with that, though I think I have to note that there's a caveat where the game is not always tailored as narrowly as the designer thinks it is (or alternately the people playing it are not always staying within those lines well).I also have to note the scope-of-resolution has an impact here.&nbsp; By that I mean (to use the ice case) if walking across the ice&nbsp; is never an issue, or is never considered an issue different from a number of other things, and the output from the intent to do so is going to be abstracted up enough, further rules are largely superfluous (where that degree of broad-strokes resolution will be satisfactory to all participants is a largely separate question). I don't think I have a disagreement with any of this.&nbsp; I will, however, suggest that in some cases that theoretically have a limited scope-of-output, in actuality some of that output is very much tossed to the users (and possibly the GM, though many such games have less of a dominant role for that figure), and in those cases I'm still of the opinion that if anyone cares about consistency conventions or house rules will inevitably develop.&nbsp; In some there's no need because what variance in that output occurs is largely look-and-feel and will have little or no impact on the actual further mechanical resolution of anything, which will only be constrained by the actual mechanical output.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9431617, member: 7026617"] I'd generally agree with that, though I think I have to note that there's a caveat where the game is not always tailored as narrowly as the designer thinks it is (or alternately the people playing it are not always staying within those lines well). I also have to note the scope-of-resolution has an impact here. By that I mean (to use the ice case) if walking across the ice is never an issue, or is never considered an issue different from a number of other things, and the output from the intent to do so is going to be abstracted up enough, further rules are largely superfluous (where that degree of broad-strokes resolution will be satisfactory to all participants is a largely separate question). I don't think I have a disagreement with any of this. I will, however, suggest that in some cases that theoretically have a limited scope-of-output, in actuality some of that output is very much tossed to the users (and possibly the GM, though many such games have less of a dominant role for that figure), and in those cases I'm still of the opinion that if anyone cares about consistency conventions or house rules will inevitably develop. In some there's no need because what variance in that output occurs is largely look-and-feel and will have little or no impact on the actual further mechanical resolution of anything, which will only be constrained by the actual mechanical output. [/QUOTE]

Verification