When the system gets in the way

[LostSoul]

Which explains why narrativist DMs will like rules-light systems, since they find themselves empowered.

I've always seen it the other way around - the players are the ones who are empowered.

 

[Odhanan]

Not the case, since the GM is the one who has the last word when it comes to adjudication outside the rules. By definition, a rules-light system has less rules. Which leaves more room for adjudication. So more final words from the GM.

 

[buzz]

I've found that the things that really matter are all written up already. Hit him, trip him, grapple him, silence him, flesh to stone him, etc.

There's more flexibility available in those manuevers and stuff than first appears. E.g., I send a "Rule of the Day" email to my group to aid in our rule-fu, and yesterday's was Bull Rush. One player replied that he didn't think it was all that useful, but then another player gave about 10 or so examples that the rest of us just hadn't really thought of (essentially, think of it less as "Bull Rush" and more as "Move Opponent"). It was way cool.

 

[buzz]

Not the case, since the GM is the one who has the last word when it comes to adjudication outside the rules. By definition, a rules-light system has less rules. Which leaves more room for adjudication. So more final words from the GM.

I would agree, at least with traditional rules light games, i.e., games that are simple by virtue of eliminating detail, as opposed to being rules-minimal by design.

Some of the newer Narrativist designs like Dogs in the Vineyard, or even one-pagers like The Pool are extremely player-empowering, however.

 

[Barak]

Sure, why not? It's cool, something fun to see and do, and it doesn't break the game in any way. What could be wrong with that?

I'm not trying to simulate reality here, though.

There's quite a step between simulating reality and ignoring it. And doesn't break the game in any way? Jumping from a knowledge of engineering to the ability of making walls fall down.. Would a character with knowledge(Arcana) be able to dispel magic at will? It's about the same thing, honestly.

 

[LostSoul]

There's quite a step between simulating reality and ignoring it. And doesn't break the game in any way? Jumping from a knowledge of engineering to the ability of making walls fall down..

Well, look at it this way. If the PC makes his check, the wall was already buckling, ready to fall, and nobody noticed it yet, and all he needs to do is exert a little crowbar pressure right here and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

If he fails, the wall can't be collapsed. Imagine it like in a comic book - thought bubbles: "Maybe if this one beam is weak I can collapse it on James the Slightly Rude - no, strong dwarvish construction, I can't bring it down."

In the past, as GM I've maintained the power here, trying to get the players to come up with something I can buy so that they can make the roll. Now I think I would change it so that if anyone at the table thinks it's lame, then, well, you gotta try something else.

Would a character with knowledge(Arcana) be able to dispel magic at will? It's about the same thing, honestly.

Sure, why not! If we're talking about d6, give the guy a skill: Magic. Then, whatever magic he wants to work, have him roll. Of course, this skill doesn't replace the existing ones, so he can't use Magic to Con someone. What he can do, however, is use Magic to get a bonus to his Con roll, because he's casting a spell. Or see into the future, or turn into a dragon, or whatever.

 

[LostSoul]

So, Wik, now that I've ruined your thread with all my grandstanding mumbo-jumbo...

What sorts of things are you giving out Character Points for? (Do they still call them that? Can you get Force/Dark Side Points?)

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would agree, at least with traditional rules light games, i.e., games that are simple by virtue of eliminating detail, as opposed to being rules-minimal by design.

Some of the newer Narrativist designs like Dogs in the Vineyard, or even one-pagers like The Pool are extremely player-empowering, however.

That's true, but then the rules in games like that don't cover what your character can do in the "Can she jump this ten-foot gap?" or "Can she stab this zombie in the brain?" sense. They help answer other questions, like "What do you have to put on the line to make this guy leave town?"

 

[LostSoul]

That's true, but then the rules in games like that don't cover what your character can do in the "Can she jump this ten-foot gap?" or "Can she stab this zombie in the brain?" sense. They help answer other questions, like "What do you have to put on the line to make this guy leave town?"

Well, although it would be lame, in Dogs, if you really wanted a conflict over jumping the 10-foot gap, you'd roll the Demonic Influence against the PC.

 

[Barak]

Well, look at it this way. If the PC makes his check, the wall was already buckling, ready to fall, and nobody noticed it yet, and all he needs to do is exert a little crowbar pressure right here and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

If he fails, the wall can't be collapsed. Imagine it like in a comic book - thought bubbles: "Maybe if this one beam is weak I can collapse it on James the Slightly Rude - no, strong dwarvish construction, I can't bring it down."

Well. That does make some sense, and do seem pretty cool. Once, maybe twice.. But if it happens all the time.. It's just weird. And to -prevent- it from happening all the time?

It is right for some types of game, I'll admit that. I -will- add, however, that it comes with it's own set of issues.

[/quote]
Sure, why not! If we're talking about d6, give the guy a skill: Magic. Then, whatever magic he wants to work, have him roll. Of course, this skill doesn't replace the existing ones, so he can't use Magic to Con someone. What he can do, however, is use Magic to get a bonus to his Con roll, because he's casting a spell. Or see into the future, or turn into a dragon, or whatever.[/QUOTE]

Well that would definitively "break" the game, as far as D&D is concerned.