QuoteSo would answering the question.

He did, multiple times.  You were just too busy attacking him to actually excercise some reading comprehension.

Quote from: DazturHmmmm OK, in OD&D "the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances." But the same applies to just about every RPG in existance. Also virtually every RPG in existance (except maybe Synnibar?) stresses that the GM can alter the rules at will if doing so will result in a better play experience (ie Rule 0).

Therefor saying that a game in which  a GM gets to make up stuff to cover unforseen circumstances and tweak the rules is about as relevant as saying that a movie is cinematic because it is shown in a cinema. That's what RPGs (a few bizarre/crappy exceptions aside) DO.

Great - a tautology. At least we can agree on it, I suppose. (Mind that later, this blunts your attempt at insight).

Quote from: DazturSo, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed.

OK, here's where your point is blunted. If you take your first point, above, it is impossible to say that one RPG is more flexible in relation to another.  They all have Rule 0 (according to your premise), so they will all be equally flexible.

Quote from: DazturMy personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

You had me up until "the more flexible a game is."  What you really mean to say is that you prefer a game that doesn't require the invention of new rules to implement it's version of flexibility.

Which is fine. Here's the amazing part - so do I!

Quote from: DazturLet me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Rule 0 - the GM can make up any rule to account for unforeseen occurrences.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Rule 0 - the GM can make up any rule to account for unforeseen occurrences.

I fixed your example for you, according to your own premise. When it's implemented like this, you can see how neither game is inherently more flexible than the other. They differ merely in the method.

Quote from: DazturHOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

However, since you can, due to rule 0 and according to your premise, make up whatever rules you need to, Game A is just as flexible as Game B.

Now do you see why I'm having such a problem with your point? It's not reading comprehension, it's your approach. It's flawed because you're trying to take something subjective - your desire to not have to make up rules to address things not specifically covered - and spin it as some objective measure of flexibility.

QuoteHowever, since you can, due to rule 0 and according to your premise, make up whatever rules you need to, Game A is just as flexible as Game B.

No, this is a tautology.  ANY game becomes "more flexible" if you just start grafting on house rules.  That's not the fucking point being made.

If you don't care to bother with house rules, however, then a game with an established framework for generic task resolution is going to be more flexible than one that doesn't in terms of what you can do within the game rules as written.  

That's it.  It really is that simple, and I remain baffled as to why this is so hard to grasp.  It's a very basic concept, one that we have even discussed here in the past, even specifically as regards the case of older D&D editions.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, this is a tautology.  ANY game becomes "more flexible" if you just start grafting on house rules.  That's not the fucking point being made.

If you don't care to bother with house rules, however, then a game with an established framework for generic task resolution is going to be more flexible than one that doesn't in terms of what you can do within the game rules as written.  

That's it.  It really is that simple, and I remain baffled as to why this is so hard to grasp.  It's a very basic concept, one that we have even discussed here in the past, even specifically as regards the case of older D&D editions.

So really, this is "I don't like to have to make house rules."

Wow.

It's confusing because he's claiming this flexibility without the caveat that you impose - don't include house ruling. Then it makes sense.

But everything he's written, as far as I can tell, includes house rules and, therefore, is simply trying to apply a preference to make the argument about flexibility.

Really, J, go back and read his original posts.  I have no problem with some of it.  It's when he tries to say things like "more flexible" or "less input" in ways that seem completely foreign to me. And all of this is based simply on OG trying to get him to define "less flexible."  Because, I think, he had the same reaction as me. "You're kidding, right?  I could make up any thing I needed to rule on something.  How much more flexible can something get?"

If you add the caveat that attempts to diminish house/spot rulings, then you are in a different realm.  In software, we sometimes make the distinction between flexibility and robustness; the latter being, to put it in terms of this discussion, trying to design a system that avoids house rules (so to speak). Perhaps this is why I'm having a problem with his assertion.

QuoteBut everything he's written, as far as I can tell, includes house rules

No it doesn't.  

QuoteReally, J, go back and read his original posts.

I have.  Every last one, down to the letter.  His choice of terminology isn't the best because he's trying to explain something that I suspect he doesn't know a widely accepted term for like "unified die mechanic" or the like.  

It's also a point I happen to agree with (though I don't care for FUDGE).  I don't like house rules, I don't like having to make them at all.  I don't buy a game to have to go and write half of it for the author, and I don't want to have to deal with the confusion that seems inevitable in any group once you start dealing with variant rules.  If you wanted to find somewhere to go after his argument, go after his like of FUDGE, because it's the real rhetorical weakpoint in what he's presented, because FUDGE basically makes you write everything but the die mechanic yourself.  

But the rest of it is a pretty basic description of the advantages of a flexible, open-ended task resolution system, something that OD&D just flat doesn't have.  He's not stating a single word that isn't true, and he's not even stating it in a terribly inflammatory or even strongly negative manner.

Quote from: Daztur....

Then Xanther gives some examples about how mechanics for hiding behind a rock could be made up whole cloth (exactly what I was talking about) and this restores sanity.

....

I wouldn't call making them up from whole cloth but rather by analogy from previously existing rules that cover essentially the same situation.

I think our disconnect is over the term "flexible" I think the OD&D rules are flexible in this example.  Now they may not be comprehensive or possess a systematic framework for adjudicating almost any action.  It's in a way one of the weakness of a class based approach to character definition.

One could call such rules more "incomplete" or more "open" depending on the conotation you want to use.  I'd prefer a more neurtal term though.

I will mention that somewhere in the AD&D DMG there is a mention of using Petrification Save as a catch-all roll to do all sorts of stuff.  Not that I find that a very satisfying approach.

I will agree that the OD&D rules left out a large amount of rules on what you might think would be very common adventuring situations.  Given that it was the first RPG, and the nature of document creation in 1972, I willing to cut it some more slack than say a game created recently.  There is also more to a game for me than an overarching resolution mechanic.

This is why a game like Traveller was so impressive to me in 1978 with the skill based approach you have actual explicit rules that can be applied to many situations.

Quote from: J ArcaneHe's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

This I actually agree with J Arcane about even though I don't agree with Daztur's preference.  Internet board RPG lingo savvy is something I struggle with to.  I understood what he meant in broad terms.  

Daztur I find BD&D more flexible when I GM because I don't have to reference the rules to setup scenarios.  For the most part, I only use the rules for what they cover.  Since there is a fairly bare bones rule structure, I don't have to spend a lot of time in preparation or playing concentrating on the specifics of task resolution.  If it sounds reasonable I allow it and move on.  Swimming, jumping, falling to name a few aren't exactly tasks that I find all that entertaining in RPGs.  I always considered taking 10 and 20 to be a half step to that.    

I understand your preference in unified mechanics because it allows the die to be the final arbiter of success for at least all forseeable tasks.  Basically it provides a framework for the GM to make reasonable calls that are consistent.  I have a little more faith in the players and myself to provide that reasonable consistency more so than the rules.

Edited to add:  I love Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) too which is a unified mechanics system.  I'm a contradiction to myself.

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, this is what I'm talking about.  That's fucking dull.  At that point, you're not even really doing something that could be described as a game except in the broadest terms, because it's not even really interactive anymroe if you're just doing the same things and rolling the same dice over and over again.  The only guy who still gets to make any decisions is the spellcaster, but he gets squat for spells per day, so half the time, he's not even got that to play with.

And yet by and large, that is the model for the vast majority of RPG systems, especially the so called "lite" or "simple" ones.

Not to toot my own horn, but many of the best combats I've seen recently have been run with FtA!, which is considerably simpler than D&D 3.x to run.

The difference isn't in how simple or complex a game system is, but in how much versatility of action it allows players to do.  If the players will be rewarded with the best chance of doing damage if they do the exact same attack every single time, then that's what they'll do. If on the other hand taking things like terrain or position in account, and if you have morale rules, and if you have a way of doing different particular "stunts" that fit the moment (and not just the exact same "special attack" that you use EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME you attack, because you took a feat in it and it has the best bonus), then the combat will be exciting.

RPGPundit