Quote from: jhkimAn old observation of mine was that power gamers tend to specialize as either the "Rules Lawyer" or "Wheedler".  A Rules Lawyer will manipulate whatever hard rules you give out to maximize what comes out.  A Wheedler will socially manipulate to get permission for "GM's option" things which bend or break the rules -- often taking things which the GM wants in the campaign like plot hooks and so forth.  

I think that's a very acute observation. It makes me think of a game group I know of where one player's character generation broke half a dozen rules, but the GM allowed it because for some reason he thinks a demon-possessed character whose alternate demon form comes out to play and destroy things from time to time is cool. That this will also destroy any semblance of a coherent adventuring party or plot doesn't seem to bother him.

Quote from: jhkimIf anything, I think that the GM discretion route is more likely to lead to story bias, since GM's are more often swayed by what would make a cool story -- at least in my experience.

It's nice to see some bias in favour of GMs for a change

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo anyway, my approach to any rules is to keep them relevant. A GM who allows multiple rolls with no consequence--but doesn't let you just declare automatic success--is doing a bad job of interpreting the rules. The same applies e.g. to a GM who doesn't enforce a rule to keep it meaningful. A classic example is a game where you can spend points on social skills or charisma, but the GM doesn't ever call for rolls (or at least take the ability into account) in social situations.

Where I'm going is "let's roll X ability 20 times" is only artificial as a tactic if the GM isn't doing the job the GM is supposed to do.

Hm.  So, there are often rules like "Roll climb every round" or "Roll Search for every 5 foot by 5 foot area".  As I understand it, you're saying that regardless of what a rule says, the GM should either override the rule and declare automatic success or make the repetitive rolls interesting and/or non-artificial-feeling somehow.  Right?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo here we come to BW: the rule in BW isn't presented as "use common sense and make the rules relevant". It's presented as "stop GMing the way you're used to, and Let it Ride". In the context of Forge ideology, and let's be clear, that's where this aspect of the game comes from, you're supposed to follow the rules so that every group is playing the same.

The idea of following the rules isn't some bizarre Forge notion invented in 2001 on their boards.  Similarly, making rules that aren't fucking boring isn't a Forge-specific concept that they're trying to infect traditional games with.  I think it's something of an insult to traditional gamers to suggest that.  

If possible, rules should be written so that they aren't fucking stupid and require the GM to override them in order for there to be any semblance of common sense.  That might not be possible in all cases, but it's a good ideal to strive for in my opinion.  There are tons of good games that have come up with better rules that make play better by following them.  For example, D&D3 came up with "Take 10", "Take 20", and the defined rerolls by skill.  

In general, it seems like you're trying to draw in various other Forge stuff into this.  I'm certainly not defending all possible rules in all Forge-related games, and not their rhetoric.  I'm judging that this rule on it's own merits as a rule.

In one of the gaming blogs--I think it was Mearl's--someone noted that over time the nature of the D&D traps-check changes. New players, the guy said, like the requirement to check for traps--to be careful--to exercise caution. Later, he said, they've done that and are no longer interested in the exercise and only want to focus on exception cases.

Whether this is true or not (it certainly is not universally true) it is an interesting observation: if the rules of the game have merit based on somewhat ambiguous factors like the dynamic going on at the table then it's pretty much got to be open to some interpretation.

RPGs occupy a weird area in the "games" domain--things like normal competition (and therefore the role of the referee) don't always apply directly. They are a creative and social activity in the way things like Improv aren't--at least I don't think (do Improv groups stop the activity and shoot the shit for several minutes?).

As such, writing rules that the GM isn't ever expected to ever override is somewhat different from attempting the task with a normal game.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIn one of the gaming blogs--I think it was Mearl's--someone noted that over time the nature of the D&D traps-check changes. New players, the guy said, like the requirement to check for traps--to be careful--to exercise caution. Later, he said, they've done that and are no longer interested in the exercise and only want to focus on exception cases.

Whether this is true or not (it certainly is not universally true) it is an interesting observation: if the rules of the game have merit based on somewhat ambiguous factors like the dynamic going on at the table then it's pretty much got to be open to some interpretation.

Well of course the dynamic around the table changes how they prefer their rules.  Maybe in the beginning a group likes playing Basic D&D, and then later then want the full rules.  Maybe after a time they might decide that they don't want D&D at all, but instead want True20 and don't like feeling so limited by classes.  Groups can change in what sort of rules they want.  These will have different options.  

Does this mean that classes in D&D should be an optional rule, or specifically made "open to interpretation"?  I don't think so.  You're always writing the game to a limited set.  If there are some swing points in the rules that fans of the game are seriously divided over, then you may put in some optional rules.  However, too many optional rules just makes the game wishy-washy and less functional overall.  

If someone wants to play Burning Wheel without "Let It Ride", they're perfectly welcome to.  (At least as far as I'm concerned.)  Despite Gygax's early protests, people can and will implement house rules, variants, and so forth.  

If you try to write your game thinking that you have to please everyone in all moods, you're going to end up with something that pleases nobody.

Quote from: jhkimDoes this mean that classes in D&D should be an optional rule, or specifically made "open to interpretation"?  I don't think so.  You're always writing the game to a limited set.  If there are some swing points in the rules that fans of the game are seriously divided over, then you may put in some optional rules.  However, too many optional rules just makes the game wishy-washy and less functional overall.  

Remember all those NPC-only classes in The Dragon? A lot of people did play with them as PC classes. Some didn't. There are new classes being published today that are sometimes in use and sometimes not.

So, yes, it does seem they're optional. Should be? I dunno--but given the success of D&D maybe people like it that way.

QuoteIf someone wants to play Burning Wheel without "Let It Ride", they're perfectly welcome to.  (At least as far as I'm concerned.)  Despite Gygax's early protests, people can and will implement house rules, variants, and so forth.

It's clear that Luke won't hunt people down and take back the copies of bW they play with if the GM calls for lots of rolls. But does your "as far as I'm concerned" match the tone the rules are written in?

QuoteIf you try to write your game thinking that you have to please everyone in all moods, you're going to end up with something that pleases nobody.

Dunno about that: the "Rule zero" rule might be designed to do exactly that. It seems to please a fair amount of people as well.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoRemember all those NPC-only classes in The Dragon? A lot of people did play with them as PC classes. Some didn't. There are new classes being published today that are sometimes in use and sometimes not.

So, yes, it does seem they're optional. Should be? I dunno--but given the success of D&D maybe people like it that way.

Just a clarification -- when I say "classes should be an optional rule", I didn't mean any specific set of classes, but the entire structure of choosing a class.  For example, D&D could have had an optional point system where no characters had a defined class, but instead bought their BAB, saves, spells, and other abilities directly from character points like GURPS.  That isn't done, and isn't done by almost all D&D players as far as I know.  

(I know of a few systems to have broad classes or design-it-yourself classes, but I don't know of a classless point system.  If you know of one, I'd be interested in a link.)  

Quote from: MarcoIt's clear that Luke won't hunt people down and take back the copies of bW they play with if the GM calls for lots of rolls. But does your "as far as I'm concerned" match the tone the rules are written in?

Is the tone important?  As far as I've seen, most games (including D&D) have plenty of rules that are written as rules -- i.e. they say what you are supposed to do.  Now, there are some exceptions.  Notably, the Fudge core book frequently hedges everything by saying things like "To determine initiative, you could do X, or you could do Y, or you could do Z."  However, D&D and indeed most rules of most games will instead say "Roll 1d20 and add your initiative modifier."

Yah. Ok. I will note we speculated about a 0-level D&D where we would then choose a class. That counts as more than game hacking than optional rules.

I think tone *is* important. I think it does matter and is part of the system-does-matter spectrum (artwork too). How much? At least as much as rules. In the technical realm, CAN is very different in a spec than MUST or MUST not.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think tone *is* important. I think it does matter and is part of the system-does-matter spectrum (artwork too). How much? At least as much as rules. In the technical realm, CAN is very different in a spec than MUST or MUST not.

I sort of agree, but even if something is written as a rule -- i.e. "Roll Climb for every round moved" rather than "Roll Climb at your discretion, we suggest once for every round moved" -- that can be overridden in play by a given group.  

As I see it, the mechanics that you write in as rules (aka "MUST") should be the core of your system.  People can still change them in practice, but as a designer you're not going to concern yourself much over them doing that.  Those rules are always used in your playtesting.  The game should be playable and fun to your core audience -- though not to everyone -- using these rules as written.  

If you bend or modify some rules yourself in playtesting, then those should be qualified rules -- labelled "advanced" or "optional" or "GM's discretion" or somesuch.  

I think Let It Ride works for me as a core rule.  It's at least playable as-is, and suits my tastes fine that way (even though other people might like something else).  I'm more doubtful of something like "Roll Climb every round" phrased as a rule, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: jhkim...
(I know of a few systems to have broad classes or design-it-yourself classes, but I don't know of a classless point system.  If you know of one, I'd be interested in a link.)  
....

From your description from GURPS it sounds like that is what you are looking for or TFT.  If not I have a home-made system that is essentially classless with a "point" system I think.  I have no website though.

I can say from expereince the big difficulty in this systems is in the details, such approaches are unforgiving if not thought out and play tested.  At least for me I want to have a good dynamic range of playable character progression and prevent overpowered one trick ponies.