Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 7618774" data-attributes="member: 8495">A major challenge for this endeavor is that one's actual play experience is not always tightly linked to the rules. This is not to say that system doesn't matter — it definitely has an impact — but RPGs are so complicated and have so many aesthetic dimensions that different groups run them entirely differently. For example, I recall one of the great dungeon master's of my youth would ask everyone to show up with a description of their character on a single 3x5 index card. No stats, no equipment lists, just a bit of backstory fluff and a description of their basic talents. This was 1e AD&amp;D. It sure didn't feel like a lot of other AD&amp;D tables. Similarly, I've played D&amp;D games in other editions that were all combat and others that were mostly role-playing with precious few die rolls in any given session. I've played at GURPS tables where every optional rule seemed to be in effect with scores of books available for consultation and where the tactical combat system was really its own hyper-complex battle simulation. And I've played at GURPS tables that were minimalist with simple wildcard skills, zero combat, and no books at all.Again, this isn't to say that the rules systems themselves might not be measurable in some manner, and compared against each other, but I wonder how much utility this would have in terms of predicting the actual experience of play? A narrative review may have more utility because it won't be constrained by the elements that are being measured, but reviewers may need to do a better job at describing the crunch</blockquote>

[QUOTE="uzirath, post: 7618774, member: 8495"] A major challenge for this endeavor is that one's actual [I]play experience[/I] is not always tightly linked to the rules. This is not to say that system doesn't matter — it definitely has an impact — but RPGs are so complicated and have so many aesthetic dimensions that different groups run them entirely differently. For example, I recall one of the great dungeon master's of my youth would ask everyone to show up with a description of their character on a single 3x5 index card. No stats, no equipment lists, just a bit of backstory fluff and a description of their basic talents. This was 1e AD&D. It sure didn't feel like a lot of other AD&D tables. Similarly, I've played D&D games in other editions that were all combat and others that were mostly role-playing with precious few die rolls in any given session. I've played at GURPS tables where every optional rule seemed to be in effect with scores of books available for consultation and where the tactical combat system was really its own hyper-complex battle simulation. And I've played at GURPS tables that were minimalist with simple wildcard skills, zero combat, and no books at all. Again, this isn't to say that the rules systems themselves might not be measurable in some manner, and compared against each other, but I wonder how much utility this would have in terms of predicting the actual experience of play? A narrative review may have more utility because it won't be constrained by the elements that are being measured, but reviewers may need to do a better job at describing the crunch [/QUOTE]

Verification