Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7769663" data-attributes="member: 29398">It boils down to the relative ratio of &quot;rulings&quot; (by the GM) vs &quot;rules&quot; a system is trying to achieve (or, in the case of very early games before such things were major considerations, achieves regardless).The shortest way to put it is that the more hard-coded rules a game has the less need - in theory - there is for rulings. (note that &quot;rules&quot; here includes houserules and system kitbashes - a rule is a rule no matter its origin)3e and 4e D&amp;D carried in their designs a strong sense of rules over rulings.&nbsp; Each acknowledged that sometimes rulings would inevitably have to happen, but the focus was on rules.&nbsp; 5e D&amp;D by contrast came right out and declared &quot;rulings, not rules&quot; as one of its basic design philosophies, though it still has a lot of rules. <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=":)" />As for the article itself, the issue is that rules precision is needed (or has certainly come to be expected) in some aspects of most RPGs but not necessarily in others, coupled with some systems placing more emphasis on different aspects among these:Combat - highly precise in many systems, a high focus in all D&amp;D versions but variable focus elsewhereExploration - some very precise elements in some systems e.g. 1e D&amp;D but precision - and focus level - otherwise highly variable across other systemsSocial interaction - low but generally growing precision, focus level all over the place and often driven by each individual table's preferences (and setting in use) as much as the system'sDowntime - very low precision in many cases, and generally very low focus.Which means the areas of discussion that'll arise from people answering the headline question here will be based on how precise they prefer rules to be for exploration and-or social interaction, as that's where (most of) the variability lies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7769663, member: 29398"] It boils down to the relative ratio of "rulings" (by the GM) vs "rules" a system is trying to achieve (or, in the case of very early games before such things were major considerations, achieves regardless). The shortest way to put it is that the more hard-coded rules a game has the less need - in theory - there is for rulings. (note that "rules" here includes houserules and system kitbashes - a rule is a rule no matter its origin) 3e and 4e D&D carried in their designs a strong sense of rules over rulings. Each acknowledged that sometimes rulings would inevitably have to happen, but the focus was on rules. 5e D&D by contrast came right out and declared "rulings, not rules" as one of its basic design philosophies, though it still has a lot of rules. :) As for the article itself, the issue is that rules precision is needed (or has certainly come to be expected) in some aspects of most RPGs but not necessarily in others, coupled with some systems placing more emphasis on different aspects among these: Combat - highly precise in many systems, a high focus in all D&D versions but variable focus elsewhere Exploration - some very precise elements in some systems e.g. 1e D&D but precision - and focus level - otherwise highly variable across other systems Social interaction - low but generally growing precision, focus level all over the place and often driven by each individual table's preferences (and setting in use) as much as the system's Downtime - very low precision in many cases, and generally very low focus. Which means the areas of discussion that'll arise from people answering the headline question here will be based on how precise they prefer rules to be for exploration and-or social interaction, as that's where (most of) the variability lies. [/QUOTE]

Verification