Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5354067" data-attributes="member: 87792">I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined.&nbsp; I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs.&nbsp; This does not hold in D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp;No.&nbsp; But you need to work hard to tell me in three paragraphs as much as three lines of math will.&nbsp;Are you trying to be personally insulting?&nbsp; The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them.&nbsp; This is not a choice.&nbsp; It is a matter of how my brain is wired.&nbsp; That yours isn't must be relaxing for you.&nbsp; In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play.&nbsp; I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else).&nbsp;For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&amp;D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play.&nbsp; And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them.&nbsp;&nbsp;But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades.&nbsp; It really gets in the way of enjoying a RPG unless the goal is to find the rules of the new world.&nbsp; Different strokes for different folks.&nbsp; But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun.&nbsp;I'll concede the point with the proviso that a GM who burns out fast is probably worse than none at all - you've not only had a bad campaign, you've even reduced your pool of potential GMs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed. The map is not the territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;If a rules light system is &quot;a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references&quot; then it's badly written even if it's a good game.&nbsp; And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard.&nbsp; I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game.&nbsp; How do I do it?&nbsp; What sort of fallout do I take if I fail?&nbsp;&nbsp;1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG.&nbsp;2: That's one of the reasons I really like skill challenges.&nbsp; There is a target but the things aren't strict pass/fail.&nbsp;&nbsp;And ultimately comes down to picking a number between 1 and 5.&nbsp; Normally 1.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;There is that.&nbsp;&nbsp;And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional.&nbsp; &quot;As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Functionality every time.&nbsp;&nbsp;What are you calling D&amp;D?&nbsp; But I'm running two campaigns at the moment.&nbsp; And not because I don't have players who'll try other systems.&nbsp;&nbsp;That was the consequence rather than the reason, I'll grant.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm normally on the other side of this debate <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; But a large part of why D&amp;D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top.&nbsp; People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&amp;D was tinkered with until it worked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5354067, member: 87792"] I know a fair amount of the physics of the real world even if not numerically defined. I know that if I jump off a house I'm likely to break my legs. This does not hold in D&D. No. But you need to work hard to tell me in three paragraphs as much as three lines of math will. Are you trying to be personally insulting? The first reason I want to know the rules is that because if you try to hide them from me, my brain is going to spend half its effort reverse-engineering them. This is not a choice. It is a matter of how my brain is wired. That yours isn't must be relaxing for you. In complex games (e.g. GURPS, 3.X, 4e, Pathfinder) the next reason to want to know the rules is so I can get my character to represent what I want to play. I have a better idea what my character is than any DM (or anyone else). For that matter, the only sort of RPGs where I exploit the rules right up to the hilt are ones like old-school D&D where they are partially concealed and I've had to discover them in play. And that's because my character has discovered most of those rules in character and so has mastered them. But not knowing the rules at all makes me itch between the shoulderblades. It really gets in the way of enjoying a RPG unless the goal is to find the rules of the new world. Different strokes for different folks. But please don't tell me mine are Badwrongfun. I'll concede the point with the proviso that a GM who burns out fast is probably worse than none at all - you've not only had a bad campaign, you've even reduced your pool of potential GMs. Indeed. The map is not the territory. If a rules light system is "a handbook that doesn't cover most of the situations that come up except with vague and difficult to apply references" then it's badly written even if it's a good game. And you do have a point when you take another interesting rules-light game like Dogs in the Vineyard. I want to sneak past someone (or worse yet several someones) in that game. How do I do it? What sort of fallout do I take if I fail? 1: If my computer can work on binary pass/fail, yes/no checks as long as I break it down enough then so can an RPG. 2: That's one of the reasons I really like skill challenges. There is a target but the things [I]aren't[/I] strict pass/fail. And ultimately comes down to picking a number between 1 and 5. Normally 1. There is that. And in terms of game/rules design, elegance involves simple but functional. "As simple as possible to do the job desired and no simpler". Functionality [I]every time[/I]. What are you calling D&D? But I'm running two campaigns at the moment. And not because I don't have players who'll try other systems. That was the consequence rather than the reason, I'll grant. I'm normally on the other side of this debate :) But a large part of why D&D works is that it grew organically rather than was a system designed from the top. People don't fit into neat little boxes and D&D was tinkered with until it worked. [/QUOTE]

Verification