Quote from: Simlasa;888199Maybe, but not in a 'Oooh! Look at meeeee!' sort of way. They're clever like a good plumber or bricklayer... vs. a mime pretending to be trapped in a box. They don't care if you notice how clever they are.

I'd say you didn't understand my thread, actually. Certainly, something about its wording seemed to get up your nose. I explicitly stated that I was interested in hearing about all kinds of rules and people gave (very interesting) examples of such. I can get it if you aren't interested in rules, but it would have been illuminating for you to have provided an example of these invisible craftsmen -- they sound like just the kind of ideas that interest me.

Quote from: Simlasa;888179It's part of why the 'Clever Rules' thread didn't have any traction for me, because I want rules that let me ignore them as much as possible... rather than calling attention to themselves like spastic toddlers.
But a fair number of people DO seem to get hung up on the rules, dice mechanics and whatnot... calling some systems 'boring'.

Game-mechanical systems have a fascination of their own. There's a pleasure in exploring and playing with those models. In their perfectly contained and managed intricacy, they are like doll houses and toy trains.

Most people want that in addition to the role-playing. I don't want as much as some, especially when I'm not GM, and can do without it. Others don't care what the GM uses, so long as it can be a "black box" to them (but typically do enjoy tossing dice).

The sentiment is true. However, if you ask me, a good campaign is a mix of good players, good rules and good campaign, not necessarily in this order. Players will be more likely to keep playing if the campaign interests them. A good, appropriate  ruleset will facilitate that the campaign plays flawlessly and that players will feel comfortable, with understanding and verisimilitude of the campaign and perceived world of it more understandable thanks to an appropriate ruleset. And finally, you need good players that'll invest in your game, so that you yourself, the GM, will want to continue running the campaign.

But I think indeed, if I am in a campaign that makes me heavily invested in it, I can swallow a heavier ruleset than I'd normally be willing to.

Quote from: Majus;888256I'd say you didn't understand my thread, actually. Certainly, something about its wording seemed to get up your nose. I explicitly stated that I was interested in hearing about all kinds of rules and people gave (very interesting) examples of such. I can get it if you aren't interested in rules, but it would have been illuminating for you to have provided an example of these invisible craftsmen -- they sound like just the kind of ideas that interest me.

But how we'd bitch about other's opinions then, rather than engage in a productive exchange?

I was having a similar discussion with my sister the other day. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's, she RPGs since the late 1990's.Our conclusion was that "rules light" sets tend to be about options whereas "rules heavy" sets about limitations.

What this means is that the original rules (mostly light) gave some guidelines and then the player's creativity took over and he or she could attempt anything he or she might imagine, whereas modern rules sets (mostly heavy) tend to spell out rules for everything and a player tends to check lists to see what they can do and if it's not on the list they often don't try it. My favorite RPG rules sets are OD&D and Amber Diceless, neither of which requires a lot of time to understand but both of which allow for me to be as creative as I like.

Like Gronan, I think that 400+ page rules sets make me sad. I really don't want to read all of that stuff, and I certainly don't want to have to learn it. What I want is a simple set of guidelines that, combined with creativity and imagination, can be used universally to have fun. When rules sets resemble textbooks, gaming becomes homework.

Just my two coppers.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888192OD&D, if converted to 8 1/2 x 11 inch pages, would be something like 56 or 58 pages.  I see ads for "428" or however many page rulebooks and I just want to weep.

Only because you're not the one selling them.

Quote from: Rincewind1;888269But I think indeed, if I am in a campaign that makes me heavily invested in it, I can swallow a heavier ruleset than I'd normally be willing to.

People - if they suck will I stay? No, not really under any circumstances.
Setting - if the setting sucks will I stay?  If the people are totally awesome, and the system doesn't bother me, maybe.
System - If I hate the system will I stay?  If the people are great, and the setting intrigues the hell out of me, then I'll probably live with a system I wouldn't touch under other circumstances.

So yeah, I think People > Setting > System is spot on.  
Snacks don't factor in at all, because I can bring my own.

Quote from: finarvyn;888294I was having a similar discussion with my sister the other day. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's, she RPGs since the late 1990's.Our conclusion was that "rules light" sets tend to be about options whereas "rules heavy" sets about limitations.

Just my two coppers.

I introduced a group of D&D 3.5 players to Metamorphosis Alpha 1e (vintage 1976, 32 pages). Their reaction? "We love this system! You can do anything."  The funny thing, that is the way I GM every game. You can try anything. I then use the rules to tell what happens.  I don't care for "you don't have the skill/feat/spell/mastery to do that so you can't even try".

People>Setting>System is how I would rank them too.

I am not willing to spend my gaming time with people I don't like. They don't have to be my closest friends, but they have to at least not annoy the shit out of me.

For good people and a good campaign I can put up with a lot from the mechanical system. If I'm wavering about the people and the campaign then the system can tip the scales one way or the other.

Quote from: estar;888083The rules were important because they helped with consistency. Consistency in what the characters can and cannot do. Consistency in how things are in the setting. Without that consistency the players and referee the campaign will devolve into a never ending game of twenty questions or bang your dead, not I'm not!

The design of the rules is important because different players and groups want different level of detail when adjudicating the things the characters do. For some it is enough to know that one characters has a gun, and another has a knife. For others it important whether the gun fires .22 ammo, or .357 ammo. Whether the knife is a bowie or a switch blade.

I believe that rules go beyond just providing consistency. They're a means of communicating between the game designer and the player. In that sense the rules are the campaign and as such there are some rules that can't be broken. Please take "can't" with a grain of salt as I mean to say that you can, but doing so leads me to play something which is not that particular campaign "as designed".

I also strongly believe that rules should be categorized by subsumption and not all rules carry the same weight and some fall within a subset of another. Being on the topic of Blackmoor I'd bring up the undead. If not mistaking the whole cleric/turning mechanism came from that setting. Is the turning undead rules core to D&D then? Don't think so, at least not to the level attack and damage rolls are. It's relatively easy to change the undead rules for something else, we'd not be playing "Blackmoor" anymore, but not much depends on such rules. On the other hand, changing combat rules has a more cascading effect on the game.

This brings me around to the ammo caliber. It's nice to have a difference between .22 and .357, but we must also consider if it's important and if it matters. Some rules have lots of modifiers for the purpose of adding "detail" yet these result in insignificant changes in the outcome. Are we expressing the "rules" in their minimal expression so they're quick to apply and resolve or is there "detail overhead"?

Also consider the possibility that our heroes get sent back in time and are fighting unarmored opponents (at least "effectively unarmored" to firearms). Does it matter to apply such rules at that time? How can I removed them and add them in on a "need to use basis"?

Quote from: Saurondor;888322I believe that rules go beyond just providing consistency. They're a means of communicating between the game designer and the player. In that sense the rules are the campaign and as such there are some rules that can't be broken. Please take "can't" with a grain of salt as I mean to say that you can, but doing so leads me to play something which is not that particular campaign "as designed".

The worst case of "Cult of RAW" programming I've ever seen.

The rules are just a representation of a process.

A game book, if written well can be (but isn't always) a conversation between the Game Designer and the Game Master.  Then the Game Master says "Thanks, I'll take that under advisement." and brings the game to the table, at which point the rules serve simply to facilitate conversation between Game Master and Player.

At no point do (or indeed ever should) the rules serve as conversation between designer and player, and the designer never has anything to do with the campaign.   The campaign is what happens at the table, and designer intent means nothing.

I'm talking about roleplaying games, of course, if you're doing collaborative storytelling stuff, well then, different topic.

I can beat the living fuck out of Apocalypse World to get it to do what I need for a campaign, and you're right, at that point I won't be really running Apocalypse World or anything remotely close to it.  But so what?

Quote from: finarvyn;888294I was having a similar discussion with my sister the other day. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's, she RPGs since the late 1990's.Our conclusion was that "rules light" sets tend to be about options whereas "rules heavy" sets about limitations.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

And as a young friend said after I converted him from 3.5 to OD&D, "I like the way that I say 'I want to sneak up behind him and knock him out,' you roll the dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

Quote from: CRKrueger;888325The worst case of "Cult of RAW" programming I've ever seen.

The rules are just a representation of a process.

A game book, if written well can be (but isn't always) a conversation between the Game Designer and the Game Master.  Then the Game Master says "Thanks, I'll take that under advisement." and brings the game to the table, at which point the rules serve simply to facilitate conversation between Game Master and Player.

At no point do (or indeed ever should) the rules serve as conversation between designer and player, and the designer never has anything to do with the campaign.   The campaign is what happens at the table, and designer intent means nothing.

I'm talking about roleplaying games, of course, if you're doing collaborative storytelling stuff, well then, different topic.

I can beat the living fuck out of Apocalypse World to get it to do what I need for a campaign, and you're right, at that point I won't be really running Apocalypse World or anything remotely close to it.  But so what?

I used the term communication, not conversation, please revise your comment. Conversation refers to a two way communication process which requires you to communicate back to the designer. Something that seldom happens and is a bit hard if the  designer is  Gygax or Arneson.

Quote from: Saurondor;888336I used the term communication, not conversation, please revise your comment. Conversation refers to a two way communication process which requires you to communicate back to the designer. Something that seldom happens and is a bit hard if the  designer is  Gygax or Arneson.

Which has nothing to do with the point that the Game Designer has nothing to communicate to the player about the campaign. Ever.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888338Which has nothing to do with the point that the Game Designer has nothing to communicate to the player about the campaign. Ever.

Really? How's that?

Quote from: Saurondor;888322I believe that rules go beyond just providing consistency. They're a means of communicating between the game designer and the player. In that sense the rules are the campaign and as such there are some rules that can't be broken. Please take "can't" with a grain of salt as I mean to say that you can, but doing so leads me to play something which is not that particular campaign "as designed".

Regardless of the means, it all about conveying what reality of the setting is. Writing a rules mechanic is just one way of doing that.

In the end the point is still to play the campaign not to play the rules.

Quote from: Saurondor;888322Is the turning undead rules core to D&D then?

Most people when they pick a set of rules to run their campaign with generally try to save time by using as much of the default setting of the rules as they can. It logical as it is a leisure activity. Turning undead is part of the default D&D setting so it gets woven into the setting most people create for a campaign using the D&D rule.

But the option is always there to change that. To make a setting where cleric can't turn undead by virtue of being a cleric. The consequence is that if you pile enough of these changes on top of each other then you lose the advantage of saying "I am running this campaign with the D&D rules."

With the Majestic Wilderlands I have happened to have written an entire supplement that I keep on hand to hand out. Plus I made a bunch of reference cards that clearly spell out how various things work. And I playtested the whole setup through numerous home campaigns and convention games. So it works for me to have a lot of house rules. For others without the time to do this, I would say they should find something published that close to what they want to run for their campaign and keep the tweaks down to a page worth of notes.

Quote from: Saurondor;888322This brings me around to the ammo caliber. It's nice to have a difference between .22 and .357, but we must also consider if it's important and if it matters. Some rules have lots of modifiers for the purpose of adding "detail" yet these result in insignificant changes in the outcome. Are we expressing the "rules" in their minimal expression so they're quick to apply and resolve or is there "detail overhead"?

It doesn't matter how small the difference is, what mattes whether the referee and the players consider it to be important. It all about personal preference. There is no correct amount of detail.

I will say that for a given level of detail some rule systems are easier to use than other. For example Chivalry & Sorcery vs GURPS. C&S in my opinion is as detailed as GURPS when it comes to running medieval fantasy but has a much worse design. If I was going to run a campaign with that level of detail I would use GURPS over C&S.

While I think most would agree with me, there is a caveat. Everybody thinks different. So for some C&S would be the preferred way to go because it works with how they think when it comes to medieval fantasy.