To prove any ruleset is not infallible only requires that you show it can, or did fail at some point with some group.

Proving the opposite is impossible, much as proving any negative is. You can prove something will do or did do something, you can not prove that it will not or did not do it.

Don't belive me? Your call, but the US Justice system is based on this very fact. Thus you are innocent until someone proves you DID DO something... at least within the bounds of 'reasonable doubt'...

Here's a question.  Has anyone here played an extended campaign that was not house-ruled EVER and/or did not have at least one argument/disagreement over the interpretation of an official rule?  Not saying it hasn't happened, but it hasn't happened for me.  Every game I've ever run or played has had some sort of rules tweak, even if it was only something simple like using Wisdom as perception in D&D/AD&D.  

Quote from: SpikeThus you are innocent until someone proves you DID DO something...

Yeah, right.

Pete

Quote from: pspahnYeah, right.

Pete

Now now, Pete. I never claimed it was infallible, I said it was the foundation.

It would be so much simpler if we just gave all the participants chainsaws, but it wouldn't be any more fair.

More entertaining, but not more fair.

Quote from: SpikeNow now, Pete. I never claimed it was infallible, I said it was the foundation.

It would be so much simpler if we just gave all the participants chainsaws, but it wouldn't be any more fair.

More entertaining, but not more fair.

I don't think I'd like to see OJ with a chainsaw.  

Quote from: pspahnI don't think I'd like to see OJ with a chainsaw.  

Alas, then you are stuck presumbing his innocence.  Oh well, chainsaws might have been just as fun. And I think you are not giving enough credit to the family... pretty damn motivated bunch of scrappers if you ask me.

QuoteNo ruleset is perfect. Ever.

We must be talking specifically about RPGs here, right?  Because there are lots of games with "perfect" rulesets.  Think of the classics: Go, Chess, Checkers, Poker, etc.

As for RPGs, lots of people play "By The Book" with various rulesets, so for them there's no problem.

I think there are A LOT of RPGs with less than perfect rulesets for creating the type of game or game narratives that specific groups of people want to create.

I think it's interesting that RPGs are the only game where the players seem to find it acceptable for the rules to be changed at the whim of one person on the fly.

I mean, let's say you're playing Monopoly and you actually have a Banker player (hey.  I've seen it happen!).  Does it really enhance the game if the banker let's one of the players skip paying you rent when they land on your Boardwalk hotel, because "it's just not a dramatic conclusion to the game."?

Or what if they suddenly said, "Landing on Railroads enables you to draw Chance cards, unless you're the car!"

Despite the fact that everyone is still playing Monopoly for "fun", I doubt it would go over well.

Quote from: StuartWe must be talking specifically about RPGs here, right?  Because there are lots of games with "perfect" rulesets.  Think of the classics: Go, Chess, Checkers, Poker, etc.

As for RPGs, lots of people play "By The Book" with various rulesets, so for them there's no problem.

I think there are A LOT of RPGs with less than perfect rulesets for creating the type of game or game narratives that specific groups of people want to create.

Innaccurate analogy.

In a game of Chess I'm not expecting the players to up and decide they don't feel like going for checkmate, and instead want to discuss the religious themes of having a bishop that can only move at diagonal angles.  

Those games ARE the rules.  RPGs don't work that way.  The game is what me and my players do at the table, the adventures we have, the characters we create, the things we do.  The rules exist to facilitate whatever the hell we want to do.  And no ruleset can ever be that far-reaching as to allow for every concievable possibility the players can come up with.  

That's why the Golden Rule exists in the first place.  It's saying "Look, we did our best to cover everything we thought of and thought made sense, but we can't think of everything.  Don't feel constrained by said rules if sometihng comes up that makes no sense or wouldn't be fun for you."

I don't see as how that's such a controversial sentiment.

No person can be loved by everyone. How can any game rule?

Quote from: YamoNo person can be loved by everyone. How can any game rule?

Word.

One person can certainly be loved by a large and diverse group of people, on the other hand.

One Rule to find them all, and in the Darkness Bind them...

One man come in the name of love. One man come and go. One man come here to justify. One man to overthrow.

QuoteThe rules exist to facilitate whatever the hell we want to do. And no ruleset can ever be that far-reaching as to allow for every concievable possibility the players can come up with.

I agree with the second, but disagree with the first.

No human-manageable set of rules can cover anything you could possibly conceive of and simulate anything and everything.  I've heard some pretty grand claims about one or two particular RPG that might fit the bill... but I've never seen one myself.

However, very few RPGs are designed with the goal of providing rules to facillitate you doing anything you want.  The rules are designed around helping you simulate a rather specific subset of things.  Hand to hand combat.  Magic.  Avoiding Traps.  Diplomacy. D&D is a great game, but if you're trying to use it to run a campaign about Wall Street Stock Brokers... really, that's not what those rules are for and you'd been much better looking for a game that does focus on those things.

And ultimately, what I said:

Quote from: StuartI think there are A LOT of RPGs with less than perfect rulesets for creating the type of game or game narratives that specific groups of people want to create.

and what you said:

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's why the Golden Rule exists in the first place. It's saying "Look, we did our best to cover everything we thought of and thought made sense, but we can't think of everything.

look like the same thing to me.

And I'll even agree with the next thing you say:

Quote from: J ArcaneDon't feel constrained by said rules if sometihng comes up that makes no sense or wouldn't be fun for you.

But I think the "you" in there should be all the people playing the game.  Not just one or two people.

Edit:  Golden Rule?   "treat others as you would like to be treated."   Is that what you mean?  If so -  I agree!

Analagies to chess and monopoly are inapplicable, because RPG rules are not just games.  They are games, but they are also attempts to model a fictional reality.  This thread makes me think of Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, which basically says that any mathematical model of numbers is incomplete and includes assumptions that it is consistant.  I'm not 100% sure that it applies to RPGs, but it would certainly seem possible.  That would mean that the perfect RPG - one that works (meaning 'gives desired results') 100% of the time for 100% of the groups out there is not only unlikely, but impossible.