Quote from: John MorrowThis is part of a broader theory that I have that where the players and GM know what should happen in the game, the rules will do one of two things.  Either the rules will confirm what the players and GM already know should happen next (at which point, using the rules doesn't provide any benefit over what they already had without them) or the rules will give an answer they don't want, the wrong answer, and then the rules are making the game worse for them.  So the best case scenario is that the rules are simply telling everyone what they already know and the worst case is that they are making the game worse.

From my experience the group goes to the rules/dice when they don't know what should happen in the game.  It's part of the fun -- not knowing what will happen, and then problem solving with the results.

Quote from: StuartFrom my experience the group goes to the rules/dice when they don't know what should happen in the game.  It's part of the fun -- not knowing what will happen, and then problem solving with the results.

Correct, but there are almost always places in a game where the people involved do "know what should happen", for some people more often than others.  When I GM, I probably go to the dice more than most GMs because I don't know what should happen.  I roll dice to help me figure that out.  But when I'm playing my character, I think in character and I do know how they should react to an NPC having a heated argument with them.  And since I know what my character is thinking, at best any diced mechanic that tells me how my character will react will match how I know my character should react or the diced mechanic will give me a different result that doesn't match what the character is thinking.

ADDED: Asking me to consider rules and dice to make decisions about what my characters do seems almost as strange to me as asking me to add rules and dice to my real life to help me decide what decisions to make in the real world.  Why would I want to do that?

I'm not talking about using the dice and rules to decide if a bullet hits the target when my character fires a gun (though there are some people who want to decide that, too).  I'm talking about using dice and rules to help determine whether whether my character draws his gun on an NPC and escalates the conflict between them.  If I don't know what my character will do, that could be a big help.  If I already know, then I don't need that help.  What I'm trying to find out is if there is some sort of middle-ground here, where a person can figure out what their character would do but prefer to be helped by dice and rules and, if so, what the dice and rules add to the experience for that person.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm talking about using dice and rules to help determine whether whether my character draws his gun on an NPC and escalates the conflict between them.  If I don't know what my character will do, that could be a big help.  If I already know, then I don't need that help.  What I'm trying to find out is if there is some sort of middle-ground here, where a person can figure out what their character would do but prefer to be helped by dice and rules and, if so, what the dice and rules add to the experience for that person.

If the character had some sort of Rage disadvantage, then dice could determine if they draw their gun or not.  Even if you don't want them to flip out -- maybe they will, and you have to deal with the aftermath of that.  Maybe the player gets some benefit for the risk/gamble of rolling the Rage dice, like hero points or XP.  If you know you don't want to draw your gun (or if you do) you don't have to roll the dice -- you can control your character as you like.

I don't know about DitV or the other Forge games in much detail -- so I don't know if this is similar to anything in those games...

Quote from: StuartIf the character had some sort of Rage disadvantage, then dice could determine if they draw their gun or not.  Even if you don't want them to flip out -- maybe they will, and you have to deal with the aftermath of that.

To be honest, I have a character with the Enraged disadvantage in the Champions game I'm playing in an I really don't need to roll the dice to decide when the character is enraged.  It's usually pretty obvious.

Quote from: StuartMaybe the player gets some benefit for the risk/gamble of rolling the Rage dice, like hero points or XP.  If you know you don't want to draw your gun (or if you do) you don't have to roll the dice -- you can control your character as you like.

Well, what you need to remember is that when I'm thinking in character, I'm not controlling the character that way.  My character do all sorts of things that I know are bad for them, like the character who died from his addiction and the character who pursued a relationship that was doomed to fail but couldn't see it.  I don't need dice or rules to make me do that sort of stuff.  Really.  If I can feel the rage or addiction in character, a die roll that tells me, "You're enraged!" isn't really adding to the experience for me.  If anything, rolling the dice, interpreting them, and trying to incorporate that into what the character thinks and feels detracts from that in character experience.  I'm not suggesting that it's not useful for other people.  Of course it is.  And DitV must be doing something right because of the way people gush about it.  I'm explaining my own preferences here.

That's not saying that I have no use for things like willpower rolls and such from time to time, but those are fairly specific cases where I do find that sort of mechanic useful.  But I have a pretty good grasp of when things like willpower rolls are useful for me and it follows the pattern I described.  The dice and rules are useful for me when I don't already know what the character would do because immersion, or at least the way it works for me, has blind spots and fuzzy spots and I'm fine with dice and rules filling in there.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you explain how it doesn't match with your personal experience?

I routinely use rules that track the outcomes of actions in ways that influence the future, and help to maintain causality and consequence.  I routinely use rules that help players to communicate exactly what their actions mean, emotionally, and those flags help everyone to work together more productively.  I routinely use rules that highlight specific choices by combining those two elements (emotional clarity and explicit consequences).

My experience is that all those things (and others) help me to have better game sessions, even when I know at each stage what will be happening next.  They help me orient myself in the world and in my playing group.

Quote from: TonyLBMy experience is that all those things (and others) help me to have better game sessions, even when I know at each stage what will be happening next.  They help me orient myself in the world and in my playing group.

So in those cases, you are not using the rules to resolve the situation or to tell you what happens next but to frame what's happening to provide clarity and consistency.  Is that correct?

That's pretty much what character sheets and post-game conversations do for me, so I can understand how that might be useful.

Do the rules that you use to improve your games come at a cost?  Do they ever fight what you want to do or does the overhead of using those rules ever create an unwanted distraction?  What I'm looking for here is whether it's all positive or whether you are making trade-offs.

Quote from: John MorrowSo in those cases, you are not using the rules to resolve the situation or to tell you what happens next but to frame what's happening to provide clarity and consistency.  Is that correct?

In those cases, yes.  I tried to limit my responses to the things that I use rules for which don't actually impact the resolution of the situation, or the framing of the next scene.  Not that I don't use rules for some of that stuff too, but it didn't sound like those were the parts you were interested in.

Quote from: John MorrowDo the rules that you use to improve your games come at a cost?  Do they ever fight what you want to do or does the overhead of using those rules ever create an unwanted distraction?  What I'm looking for here is whether it's all positive or whether you are making trade-offs.

Well, you know from past discussion that I don't regard out-of-game information in the same way that you do.  I like more information, whatever the source.  As long as it can be formed into a consistent picture (which, with a good ruleset, is pretty much always) more info doesn't distract me it helps me to relax and enjoy the game.

I suppose there would, theoretically, be a point at which more and more information, even if useful in itself, would hit a point of overloading my ability to parse it.  But I don't recall any examples of that actually happening to me.

Quote from: TonyLBIn those cases, yes.  I tried to limit my responses to the things that I use rules for which don't actually impact the resolution of the situation, or the framing of the next scene.  Not that I don't use rules for some of that stuff too, but it didn't sound like those were the parts you were interested in.

That's fine. When you do use rules for resolution, do you ever not like the results?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, you know from past discussion that I don't regard out-of-game information in the same way that you do.  I like more information, whatever the source.  As long as it can be formed into a consistent picture (which, with a good ruleset, is pretty much always) more info doesn't distract me it helps me to relax and enjoy the game.

OK.  That's interesting.  

I also meant the overhead of using the mechanics.  For example, using the DitV mechanics requires the rolling of dice and selecting dice to use.  Do think like die rolling, picking dice, describing things in gamespeak, etc. ever reach a point where it's annoying?  For me, for example, there is a point in Champions where keeping track of Body AND Stun AND Endurance and so on feels a bit heavy and annoying.  So I'm not talking about the mechanics producing too much of a good thing so much as the act of using the mechanics being annoying.

Quote from: Settembrini- Any RPG needs some skills to be succesful
- Those skills differ widely
- The "snide pedantic" was deliberate to rouse a staunch defense and explanation of the values/merits/process of collective production of text.

Yeah, I've figured out by now that it's deliberate. What I'm trying to tell you is that this posting tactic is unproductive. it doesn't kill discussion, not always--I'm still here, after all--but it does lessen effective communication. That is, even when we are communicating, which isn't always, it's a sort of 2 steps forward, 1 step back kind of affair. You're creating friction to understanding.

Quote from: SettembriniThat sounds to me like you have a problem that has to be solved by the players at the table. That´s a challenge [in the way of intellectual problem solving], isn´t it?
Now, I´m pretty sure without consequences for not solving the problem, it becomes meaningless (if the players can see through this).

So, I´d say, it´s not important [at this stage] what your resolution system is. To me it sounds like  you use in-game plausability to judge success.

For this you still need a well defined problem, and ressources. And the solution will rather not be neccessarily dramatic.

Problem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.
If story development prevails, the meaning of the problem solving is diminished, no?

To begin with, I'm with Tony in asking why the solution to a problem is at odds with the dramatic. There're plenty of examples in fiction of characters solving problems and sacrificing not a whit of drama. If your gaming follows the example of those stories--adventure stories, mind you--then drama and splutions to problems should line up pretty often. Now, if your problem is a physical one--say the problem is "Survive the dungeon's hazards and escape with the treasure"--and the game you're playing models a way of solving it that's undramatic--say, by flooding the dungeon and strolling in afterward to grab the goodies--then if the players take that solution, sure, it's undramatic. Which is precisely why people that want solutions to problems to be dramatic have veered toward game design that doesn't model problem solving in ways that kill drama.

Furthermore, if the problems you're presenting are more emotional and personal in nature--a problem of relationships or personal ambition, rather than of combat or puzzles--the solution almost can't help but be dramatic. Not that the questionof physical or mental achievement for the character doesn't enter into it, of course it does. But it's not the emphasis. The "problem' for Luke in Empire isn't "Defeat Darth Vader in a Fight"--he's clearly not going to win. The problem is "Oh shit, he's my father? Is that even true?! Do I join him or accept certain death? Or maybe there's a third choice?"

Before you start protesting, "But that's movies! It doesn't apply to gaming!" let me explain that I'm bringing it up to emphasize that this is thie kind of thing--moments just like that Star Wars scene--are what many of us aim for in our gaming. So if you're honestly trying to understand, look to things like that. If you don't like Star Wars, look to stories you do like. This shit is everywhere, from Diehard to Lord of the Rings to Watchmen. Some people accept that their gaming will not produce results like these stories. Some don't even want it. Some want it but only as a byproduct or secondary goal. But some want to put it right up there front-and-center.

And some even get it. The HQ game I was in had its faults, but it pretty regularly produced situations where the "problems" we were "solving" were keyed to thematic issues, and the success or failure at solving those problems were plenty dramatic.

You seem to be making some wierd assumptions about the game session I described. It's partly my fault for not addressing anything mechanical, leaving you to speculate in a vacuum./ I apologoze; let me briefly break down what's going on behind the curtain here:

HQ gives you a wholl mess o' traits, grouped a skills, personality and relationships, all with a numeric rating and having equal mechanical weight. When you enter a conflict, you declare the central trait being used, then add in augments, whatever traits apply to the situation. This is completely subjective, governed only by GM incredulity: "No, basket-eaving won't help you in this kniofe-fight." Your final score for the conflict is the central trait's rating plus 10% of all the augments' ratings. Then you roll. It's an opposed check with degrees of success/failure, and the difference in success results between the opponents determines the victory, from Marginal to Complete. (In martial combat, a "Complete" result would be "Dying" but not dead, unless the player wishes.)

Actually, soemthing Eric posted in the other thread got me thinking about this one:

Quote from: Erik BoielleActually, an important point is that if you can't get past the mooks you may not be able to get at the big bad. Assuming a similar sort of 'no repeat attempts' rule as one gets for lockpicking, this may mean trying another approach.

This is a significant element of Heroquest: the "no repeat attempts" rule. If you fail at something, that's it. You've failed, it's decided. To accomplish that same goal you've at the very least got to regroup or find another approach. This makes the consequences of failure very real; you may not be dead but you've exhausted a significant avenue to accomplishing your goal, and the appoach you try next may well be harder or less beneficial.

The problem I was trying to solve at the outset of that HQ scene was to find a cure for a magical plague that had inflicted, among others, my character's beloved. He and his companion were at the Wizards' University to seek aid in researching the plague. When we found the wizard whose help we needed and found him magically torturing/experimenting on a captured ogre-man (another PC), we had to weigh whether to keep quiet and accept his help or take action. We chose action! The problem then became how to get out of the place with its crazy magic defenses and golem guards. The solution ended up being the classic "I'll hold them off, you all go!" Sure, if my char had died at that point it would have been plentydramatic, but his story wasn't done yet. So fortunately, there was the option of failure without death.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there's little actual tactics involved in the combat itself. There's only so much maximization you can get out of Augments, without jsut being a wanker and running downyour whole list. Once I ponied up my "Spear fighting" augmented by "Protective fighter," "Prove my worth," and what have you, I was at the mercy of the dice. Though, no more so than a fighter making his to-hit roll. All his tactics and strategy have been in positioning himself to make that blow count; thereafter he relies on fate. My success (at achieving goals) was reliant on positioning within the story--going to the right places, asking the right questions, forging the right relationships, etc.--and thereafter, on the whims of fate.

And even after somehow escaping captivity, the overall problem (the plague) would be far from solved, in fact had even suffered a vast setback. True, it's unlikely the GM would let us go on and never discover the cure, but  as a result of our failures the cure could very well come too late to save my lady love. . .

That's the kind of gaming world some of us live in. Some folks (witness John Morrow's comments) get it without any special systemic support. Others, like me and Tony at least prefer to have system that will do more than just step out of the way, will in fact work with you in creating even better dramatic moments and thematic storytelling than you would have otherwise.

Does that help you understand at all?

Quote from: SettembriniI see "tactics", but not problem solving in DitV.

[SNIP]

That´s decision making. Okay. But not problem solving, in the way I meant it.

I'm actually quite curious about this. Why isn't it "problem solving"? In what way do you mean the term?

A Dogs town is quite explicitly a problem to solve--the result if no-one intervenes being that the town starves, people murder each other, the fabric of society unravels, or what have you. The Dogs are there explicitly to solve it.

So what gives?



Heym, John, I've got just one thing tochip in on you and Tony's discussion; I hope it helps clarify something. if not, my apologies and carry on with Tony, he's doing quite well.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd since I know what my character is thinking, at best any diced mechanic that tells me how my character will react will match how I know my character should react or the diced mechanic will give me a different result that doesn't match what the character is thinking.

This seems to be a misconception that's cropping up a lot in some threads lately, regarding how Dogs works. I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb eyeglasses question, but do you understand when and how and why you roll dice in Dogs, and what you do with them once they're rolled? 'Cause the dice never tell you how your character should react--you decide that yourself. The dice tell you how much oomph you've got behind your actions. How much force your argument has, or how decisive your gunplay is, or whatever. What I like about it is that it's a much better measuring stick (or looks like it, I better confess that I haven't played it yet) for how well you're doing in a conflict than most mainstream systems. For instance, in D&D you've got your main fight resource, HP, and you can just keep going till it's gone. Meantime you've got a bunch of random rolls that tell you how you're doing blow-for-blow. In Dogs you roll all those dice up front, so you know what you've got to work with and you can allocate and strategize. And if you're desperate for an edge you try a new tactic for more dice. Also, for social convflict, well, "just play out how your character responds" is usually unsatisfying for me. The Dogs dice would seem to provide a more fair yardstick for how persuasive or whatever yourcharacter is, without which you often (in my experience) get simple cases of "My character's too stubborn to back down!" "Well, MY character's too stubborn to back down!" for about 45 minutes.:ACF114F:

I can see why given your play preferences you don't find it appealing, but there's how it works and why it appeals to me, at any rate. I don't know if it sheds any light on the issue underway with Tony, but hopefully it helps on some level.

Peace,
-Joel

I appreciate your long and detailed answer. We are definitely at the point, where a definition of "problem solving" would be in order.

When I have more time, I´ll come back to that more thoroughly.

But for starters:
To me, the town is a situation, not a problem. And a pretty loosely defined one. Yes there are decisions and repercussions. But no application of smarts and cunning needed.
There is no riddle, no problem. Just moral dillemmata. It´s an exercise/exploration of "what would you do, if...?".

The thing I would call "thematic".

More on "valid" problems later.

I'd say there's plenty of smarts and cunning needed to solve moral dilemmas like "If we don't put a stop to her rebellious ways and make her marry the Steward's son, the whole town will be torn apart by anarchy, but if we do that, we're forcing her to marry a callous lout she doesn't love!"

I mean, sure, maybe you just shrug and make her marry the boy. Or maybe you let her marryher lover and stick a gun in the Steward's son's face when he objects. But maybe, just maybe, you try to find a solution where she doesn't suffer and the rest of the town doesn't either. Smarts and cunning definitely help there.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowThat's fine. When you do use rules for resolution, do you ever not like the results?

John, do you see how I could think this is turning into a fishing expedition?  

I will freely admit that I'm biased from having seen many, many similar discussions with other people inevitably turn into point-by-point interrogations with the "questioner" grilling me relentlessly for the proof they know must exist that rules are actually more trouble than they're worth, deep down where I don't even know it myself.  It's frustrating.  I cannot conclusively disprove such a theory, I can only offer my positive experiences of how I observe game rules helping my game.  If the person I'm talking with (in this case, you) chooses to discount that as unimportant then there's really not much I can do to actually communicate what I know and feel.  Given my bias, is there any reassurance that you can offer me that we're not going down that road?

As to your question:  When I use rules for resolution I sometimes don't like the results in the same way that I don't like failing my saving throw and getting cooked by a dragon, or rolling badly and landing on Park Place with all the hotels.

   For instance, in DitV, I might really, really wish that I could convince young Ephraim to turn from his prideful ways without smacking him soundly across the face.  I might well wish that my Dog weren't faced with that choice, because it's not a pleasant one.
By contrast, in games like DitV and Capes and Polaris I never have an aesthetic quarrel with the outcome of the rules.  I don't have situations where I say "That doesn't make sense" or "That's not what would happen" or "That's not very satisfying" or the like.

   I may not want to be forced to choose between letting Ephraim continue his minor sins or smacking him one, but when it happens (especially when it happens as the clear and explicit consequence of who both characters are (as represented by their traits) and how they've been interacting with each other) I agree that it's a natural and dramatic way for the story to go.  I am satisfied.
As for the separate issue of mechanics just adding too much overhead to the act of playing the game, I was trained on Champions back in the day so every game these days seems ludicrously rules-light by comparison.  I could run the mechanics in my sleep.  But that's me.

Quote from: MelinglorThis seems to be a misconception that's cropping up a lot in some threads lately, regarding how Dogs works. I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb eyeglasses question, but do you understand when and how and why you roll dice in Dogs, and what you do with them once they're rolled? 'Cause the dice never tell you how your character should react--you decide that yourself. The dice tell you how much oomph you've got behind your actions. How much force your argument has, or how decisive your gunplay is, or whatever. What I like about it is that it's a much better measuring stick (or looks like it, I better confess that I haven't played it yet) for how well you're doing in a conflict than most mainstream systems.

Using this example of play, and perhaps it's a poor example, it looks like the the dice are influencing how the character reacts.  I'm not really sure how rules and dice are supposed to resolve a social contest if they aren't determining something about how the character behaves, reacts, and when they yield.  If someone has a better example that better illustrates the interaction of the player with the dice and rules (e.g., how the player picks which dice to use) and how that influences the role-playing surrounding it, I'd like to see it.  Bear in mind that part of my perception comes from how Vincent Baker described using the dice to influence his in character play, though perhaps I was reading too much into it.

Please note that I am not trying to call DitV a bad game.  I own a copy (which I sadly can't find) and think it was well worth the money I paid for it.  I'm also certain that there it's doing something very cool for many of the people who gush over how great it is, and that's what I'm trying to understand.  

Quote from: MelinglorFor instance, in D&D you've got your main fight resource, HP, and you can just keep going till it's gone. Meantime you've got a bunch of random rolls that tell you how you're doing blow-for-blow. In Dogs you roll all those dice up front, so you know what you've got to work with and you can allocate and strategize.

But how to you relate that allocation to the role-playing?  How does strategizing how to use the dice relate to the what the character is thinking or doing?  

In D&D, the "to hit" rolls, "damage rolls", and "hit points" are all representative of something in the game world (if imperfectly).  In fact, one of the perpetual debates of old AD&D was the common perception that each "to hit" roll represented a swing of a weapon and each damage roll the damage from a single blow, while the official interpretation was that the "to hit" roll and damage roll were abstractions of what could be a whole series of attacks.  In other words, many players naturally relate die roles and rules to things happening in the game setting.

What do the dice in Dogs in the Vineyard represent?

Quote from: MelinglorAnd if you're desperate for an edge you try a new tactic for more dice.

And what if my character isn't finished with the old tactic?  I'm not done arguing yet.  But the dice tell me I am, when I run out of them, and that I have to move on to something else, right?

Quote from: MelinglorAlso, for social convflict, well, "just play out how your character responds" is usually unsatisfying for me. The Dogs dice would seem to provide a more fair yardstick for how persuasive or whatever yourcharacter is, without which you often (in my experience) get simple cases of "My character's too stubborn to back down!" "Well, MY character's too stubborn to back down!" for about 45 minutes.:ACF114F:

Not a problem I normally have.  What do you think causes that problem when you've experienced it?

Quote from: MelinglorI can see why given your play preferences you don't find it appealing, but there's how it works and why it appeals to me, at any rate. I don't know if it sheds any light on the issue underway with Tony, but hopefully it helps on some level.

If it works for you, by all means use it.  I know DitV is making plenty of people happy, and so are other Forge games.  

As I've said, I've had people tell me to read actual play threads to help me understand what's so great about Dogs in the Vineyard.  And, as I've said, I see descriptions of situations that seem pretty typical for the role-playing games I play.  So what I'm wondering is if (A) I'm missing the magic and there is something special there that I'm not seeing or (B) that a lot of people just never had experiences like that before DitV.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, do you see how I could think this is turning into a fishing expedition?

Yes, I do.  And I almost put a disclaimer on that question because of it.  But if your answer is that you are never unhappy with the results, that explains that you don't have a problem that other people have.  That's interesting.

I'm not looking for proof that the rules are more trouble than they are worth.  I'm really trying to understand why they are useful for you.  Please bear in mind that I've been on the other side of this table, having to explain to people who prefer freeform Fudge, for example, why I prefer to use more objective rules and fixed lists in Fudge.  Why people use the rules they use is important and if you want to grill me in return, I can actually do a pretty good job (I think) of explaining why I use the level and type of rules that I use and how I use them (e.g., see the discussion where JimBobOz assumed that a major combat would consume most of a session and I pointed out that for my group, even using rules like d20 or Hero, we can get in several combats a session [plus lots of interpersonal role-playing]).  

I believe you when you say that these rules help you just like I believe the people who say that DitV gave them better experiences than they've ever had before.  But telling me that it improves your game doesn't tell me how it improves your game.  Maybe that's not easy to explain.  Maybe it's too subjective and aesthetic to really explain.  Maybe my whole line of questions is a fool's errand.  I don't know until I ask.

When I asked you if you ever get results that you don't like, what I expected you to do is give the questions a serious consideration.  For me, sometimes having to think about a question like that makes me see things that I didn't see before.  Maybe for you, you already know the answer.  Either way, answering the question when asked plainly like that gives me some assurance that you are giving me your final well-considered answer.

Quote from: TonyLBAs to your question:  When I use rules for resolution I sometimes don't like the results in the same way that I don't like failing my saving throw and getting cooked by a dragon, or rolling badly and landing on Park Place with all the hotels.

OK.  That's not quite what I'm talking about.  That gets into that whole debate of how people can have fun by not liking what's happening to their character.

Quote from: TonyLBBy contrast, in games like DitV and Capes and Polaris I never have an aesthetic quarrel with the outcome of the rules.  I don't have situations where I say "That doesn't make sense" or "That's not what would happen" or "That's not very satisfying" or the like.

That's what I was asking about.  With respect to what I said earlier about knowing how things should turn out, dice, and rules, there are people who think certain results that don't make sense or aren't satisfying.  And this might go back to our disconnect over the idea that there is one right thing that the character would do vs. seeing a bunch of possible things that a character could do.  For some people (including myself, when it comes to in character thought and behavior derived from thinking in character and setting physics), there can be a strong sense that there is one right way that things should go.  As a result, other outcomes feel as "wrong" as throwing a stone and having it fall up.  And those wrong results are not satisfying because of it.

Quote from: TonyLBAs for the separate issue of mechanics just adding too much overhead to the act of playing the game, I was trained on Champions back in the day so every game these days seems ludicrously rules-light by comparison.  I could run the mechanics in my sleep.  But that's me.

My group uses the Hero system (we're doing a Champions game now, in fact) and we tend to strip down a lot of the details and keep things simple. But even then, very heavy systems like Hero do get in the way of role-playing for me and, in practice, I treat Hero System combats as tactical wargame exercises with, at best, intermittent in character thinking.  That's one of the reasons why I min-max characters in Hero and d20, so I can enjoy the game aspect of combat played to win.  My preference is closer to objective Fudge with some extra rules bolted on, while rules like Risus or OTE are too light for me.

That's what fascinates me about how people select rules.  I feel like Goldilocks sometimes, and find myself wondering why I think Hero and d20 are too heavy, Risus and OTE are too light, but done a certain way, Fudge is just right.  Another element of making rules work optimally for people is understanding how heavy or light they should be.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, what you need to remember is that when I'm thinking in character, I'm not controlling the character that way.  My character do all sorts of things that I know are bad for them, like the character who died from his addiction and the character who pursued a relationship that was doomed to fail but couldn't see it.  I don't need dice or rules to make me do that sort of stuff.  Really.  If I can feel the rage or addiction in character, a die roll that tells me, "You're enraged!" isn't really adding to the experience for me.  If anything, rolling the dice, interpreting them, and trying to incorporate that into what the character thinks and feels detracts from that in character experience.  I'm not suggesting that it's not useful for other people.  Of course it is.  And DitV must be doing something right because of the way people gush about it.  I'm explaining my own preferences here.

There are a lot of different types of games.  It makes sense to think about things in a certain way for some, and a different way for others.  The way you move your Knight in Chess is different from how you move him in Warhammer.  

In some roleplaying games, it makes sense to get really into your character and then act / narrate what they do, and avoid unnecessary things like dice for social mechanics (etc).  In other roleplaying games that won't work for you, because part of the game is roleplaying in a reactive way to the randomness of the dice/rules.

I think what bogs down a lot of discussion about RPG design / theory is that there's really a lot of variety to RPGs, but most people hear RPG and think about a specific game (possibly with nominally different setting and dice mechanics).