Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9015150" data-attributes="member: 42582">So we've now moved from &quot;complete rules&quot; to &quot;complete systems&quot;? Which would be something like &quot;from a full statement of the rules, every possible state of the system is in principle derivable&quot;?I didn't know those two phrases were intended to be synonyms. (Nor did [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER], who distinguished them upthread in more or less the same terms I'm distinguishing them in this post.)As I think I've made clear, I regard the rules of a game as a complete if, at any game state that is arrived at, they tell the participants how to move to the next game state. DW does this. I've pointed out, just upthread, that Classic Traveller doesn't. And I've pointed out a bit further above that Moldvay Basic is marginal in this respect.Whether 5e is complete in its rules or not is ultimately for someone else to state, who knows it better than me. The version I'm familiar with is the Basic pdf, and it seems to me to contain instructions that fall short of completeness: for instance, there are rules that say that a die roll is to be called for if the outcome of an action is uncertain, but the notion of &quot;uncertain&quot; is left unexplained, with an unstated implication that the GM is to decide based on their notes, their intuition or both. If I was redrafting it so as to make it more complete, I would say that the rule is &quot;a dice roll is called for if the GM does not want to just stipulate an outcome&quot;, and then add some commentary about the bases (notes, intuition, maybe others) that the GM might rely on in stipulating an outcome. (This commentary would parallel the discussion in AW of how the GM can &quot;disclaim decision-making&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9015150, member: 42582"] So we've now moved from "complete rules" to "complete systems"? Which would be something like "from a full statement of the rules, every possible state of the system is in principle derivable"? I didn't know those two phrases were intended to be synonyms. (Nor did [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER], who distinguished them upthread in more or less the same terms I'm distinguishing them in this post.) As I think I've made clear, I regard the rules of a game as a complete if, at any game state that is arrived at, they tell the participants how to move to the next game state. DW does this. I've pointed out, just upthread, that Classic Traveller doesn't. And I've pointed out a bit further above that Moldvay Basic is marginal in this respect. Whether 5e is complete in its rules or not is ultimately for someone else to state, who knows it better than me. The version I'm familiar with is the Basic pdf, and it seems to me to contain instructions that fall short of completeness: for instance, there are rules that say that a die roll is to be called for if the outcome of an action is uncertain, but the notion of "uncertain" is left unexplained, with an unstated implication that the GM is to decide based on their notes, their intuition or both. If I was redrafting it so as to make it more complete, I would say that the rule is "a dice roll is called for if the GM does not want to just stipulate an outcome", and then add some commentary about the bases (notes, intuition, maybe others) that the GM might rely on in stipulating an outcome. (This commentary would parallel the discussion in AW of how the GM can "disclaim decision-making".) [/QUOTE]

Verification