I find the whole discussion odd...
largely becuase I usually run houserules that I largely make up as I go along.

If I know that a longsword does 1d8 its pretty easy to extrapolate that a church sized candlestick made of brass that weighs 10 kg will do .. 1d6+1 crushing ... So long at is always does that then it's as acurate as a rule written down by someone who had exactly the same thought process 14 years ago.

I want the rules to basically be a consistent physics engine. I believe that I am capable of doing that on the fly once I have selected a base mechanic. Therefore I don't need a book of rules just the basic mechanism and a brain.

The plus side is stuff is really quick to look up the downside is the players need to trust me.... I'm a pretty trustworthy guy but some people like to have a physical thing to check when the DM tells them that the total modifier for cover and dim light in this case is -8.

Now don't think that means I am always a rules light man. I added a skills system to Amber split the powers into partial trees etc etc ... but my skill system doesn't have any skills written down because you can have any skills you want in the history of time or space. I just need to know how skills work in a diceless system and opposed to PCs and NPCs.
I just think once you have the core mechanic and a feeling for genre you can extrapolate any situation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625788I find the whole discussion odd...
largely becuase I usually run houserules that I largely make up as I go along.

If I know that a longsword does 1d8 its pretty easy to extrapolate that a church sized candlestick made of brass that weighs 10 kg will do .. 1d6+1 crushing ... So long at is always does that then it's as acurate as a rule written down by someone who had exactly the same thought process 14 years ago.

I want the rules to basically be a consistent physics engine. I believe that I am capable of doing that on the fly once I have selected a base mechanic. Therefore I don't need a book of rules just the basic mechanism and a brain.

The plus side is stuff is really quick to look up the downside is the players need to trust me.... I'm a pretty trustworthy guy but some people like to have a physical thing to check when the DM tells them that the total modifier for cover and dim light in this case is -8.

Now don't think that means I am always a rules light man. I added a skills system to Amber split the powers into partial trees etc etc ... but my skill system doesn't have any skills written down because you can have any skills you want in the history of time or space. I just need to know how skills work in a diceless system and opposed to PCs and NPCs.
I just think once you have the core mechanic and a feeling for genre you can extrapolate any situation.

Consistancy is important, and some people are just not good at it.

Quote from: Bill;625791Consistancy is important, and some people are just not good at it.

consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626032consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

This is a null statement.  It doesn't mean anything.

Consistency creates and maintains context.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626032consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

Context and Rules cover two different spheres, and except for the selection of the rules to use in the first place- have no overlap.

Unless the design is a poor one.

Quote from: gleichman;626036Context and Rules cover two different spheres, and except for the selection of the rules to use in the first place- have no overlap.

Unless the design is a poor one.

Thats a ridiculous assertion. Rules are ONLY ever used in context. they are either adapted to fit, or forced into it. But rules can't be used in isolation of context, except outside of the game (during chargen...but even then you have the context of the type of game the Gm is planning to run).The situation in the game is the context.

Quote from: Blackhand;626035This is a null statement.  It doesn't mean anything.

Meaning you simply don't understand it.

Rule: if a character wants to break through a door, they make a strength roll.

Context: the door is the rotted and worn entrance to a cell, long since unattended. It hangs off of its rusted hinges and has seen little use.

Context: the door is a solid stone boulder wedged by an ogre in the mouth of a cave.

Context: the door is a solid steel reinforced gate laden with runes of protection. It is barricaded from behind and takes three grown men to raise via a chain and pulley system.

Context: the door is a layer of ameobic slime, held in place by arcane magics. Only characters who wish the occupants no harm may pass through the slime, others are dissolved by powerful acids if they place even a limb into the goo.

Context: the door is a wyrmhole, portal to another dimesion, cunningly disguised by a glamour to resemble a kitchen cabinet.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626042Thats a ridiculous assertion.

No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

Quote from: gleichman;626048No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

So why not just play a computer game, as thats essentially the handicap you're placing on your imaginations?

Allow me to posit the alternative:

Roleplaying creates the context. As the context calls for it, the GM may invoke a rule.

The GM tailors the rules to suit the context, or, if no rule fits the context well enough, simply makes a ruling.

This is the difference to me between an RPG and this:



for the culturally vacant, thats a picture of The General, a computer learning program from the Prisoner. A question is asked of the computer, transcribed as a series of holes on a piece of paper, the paper is inserted in the computer, and the computer processes then spits out an answer.

More to the point, however, was the message behind that episode, which has to do with teh difference between learning and rote memorization. Victims of the SAT-based American public education system should be familiar with that one.

Quote from: gleichman;626048ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

They're stupid because you think they wouldn't invoke that rule? Please tell me what rule then they would invoke. And the benefits of a game having set rules for each of those circumstances, ratherthan a streamlined, simplified set of rules that an intelligent, reasoning GM can adapt to fit the situation.

And yes, ALL of those situations could invoke that rule as the D&D game is written, for those banal fellows who allow a "play by the book" mentality to make them the system's bitch, rather than the other way around.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626058So why not just play a computer game, as thats essentially the handicap you're placing on your imaginations?

A computer (today's at least) cannot provide a meaningful enough context to invoke the rules. Nor can it provide a meaningful enough context after the rules have been invoked.

For the actual combat itself, a computer game would indeed be acceptable if there was one that both used the rules I wanted, and allowed the full range of player options with those rules. But even then I like rolling me own dice.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626058Allow me to posit the alternative:

Not interested until you understand why your examples in a previous post were so poor.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626063They're stupid because you think they wouldn't invoke that rule? Please tell me what rule then they would invoke.

Very well, but I'll do so for Age of Heroes and my own campaign. I don't play D&D. I will do using only the quoted information as an input which is very incomplete...

QuoteContext: the door is the rotted and worn entrance to a cell, long since unattended. It hangs off of its rusted hinges and has seen little use.

Doesn't sound like it's a door or much of a barrier to me. No rule invoked at all under that context.

QuoteContext: the door is a solid stone boulder wedged by an ogre in the mouth of a cave.

Object isn't a door, it's a boulder. Weight isn't given, nor size. In Author mode I'd have to add that information. The rules on Effective Strength would be used to determine if it could be moved.

QuoteContext: the door is a solid steel reinforced gate laden with runes of protection. It is barricaded from behind and takes three grown men to raise via a chain and pulley system.

Again, missing key information for my system of choice. I would have to add it in Author mode determining hold strength, Armor value and durability as well as the effect of the protective runes.

The exact rules used to resolve it's opening or breach would from there be determined by the actions of the player as he would have a number of options.

QuoteContext: the door is a layer of ameobic slime, held in place by arcane magics. Only characters who wish the occupants no harm may pass through the slime, others are dissolved by powerful acids if they place even a limb into the goo.

Would never happen in my campaign as described. It isn't a door, so door opening rules would not be invoked under any conditions.

If the silly thing did exist, many other rules might be invoked depending upon how the players approached this construct.

QuoteContext: the door is a wyrmhole, portal to another dimesion, cunningly disguised by a glamour to resemble a kitchen cabinet.

Same deal as the slime, would never happen in my campaigns.

If it did, again it would invoke any number of rules depending upon how the players approached it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626063And yes, ALL of those situations could invoke that rule as the D&D game is written

I don't think you understand at all how people play RAW, or you wouldn't make such a statement and be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Quote from: gleichman;626080Not interested until you understand why your examples in a previous post were so poor.

You'd have to actually demonstrate they were poor first for a reason I'd find acceptable or at least logically consistent with what I said and the point I made.

Quote from: gleichman;626087I don't think you understand at all how people play RAW, or you wouldn't make such a statement and be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

I think you take RPGs WAY too seriously if you think ANY debate about RPG gamestyles with online strangers would have the slightest affect on my ability to look myself in the mirror.

You're answers were mostly nonsensical. Your system of choice is irrelevant, I presented the difference between a rule and context. Your answers ranged from "not enough info for blahblah system", some ridiculousness about "Author Mode" (we were discussing GMs roles in RPGs, not storygames right?), and then some "wouldn't happen in my campaign", which of course, isnt an answer, simply an avoidal. Overall, you missed or avoided the point, which wasnt to ask how you'd rule on such things in whatever system is your darling, but even if it was, you kind of failed miserably. And yes, a boulder can be a door.

Quote from: gleichman;626048No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

Sperglords gonna sperg.