Quote from: Caesar SlaadIs that what you are getting at? Are we walking around the same element blindfolded?

I don't think I'm getting my point across for some reason, likely my own fault. I'm either going to have to phrase it a different (and likely much too long) way (which will take more time than I have now) or pass on this thread.

For now I'll just state that for my own case, granularity has nothing to do with my decision to use heavy rulesets. The issue of "fidelity" as I would use the term only had a secondary effect.

Quote from: VellorianYes, Shadowrun definitely had a lot more detail on the guns aspect of the mechanic.

So, back to the topic at hand, is it granularity of detail and how much minutiae the mechanic handles that defines how "heavy" or "light" the system is?  

So, maybe it's that I like a lesser amount of detail?

See I'm not about all the detail. I'm about the breadth. Similar things, but not the same.

Quote from: BalbinusBy robust I mean games with lots of rules but where those rules serve a purpose, ie are a conscious design decision rather than just crappy design.

Spycraft is the example which sparked this, though current DnD also clearly fits. Robust in the sense that the rules are comprehensive and thorough.

Now, for me the downside is that they are just too much work to run.  I tend to prefer lighter systems.

But, lots of folk see robust rulesets as a good thing, so please explain what they bring to the party for you that a lighter ruleset wouldn't.

Nb.  Lighter, by which I mean stuff like BRP or Unisystem, not light such as Risus or Over the Edge.

Like a lot of others have said, there is the feeling of consistency in well-designed heavy rulesets.

They provide a well-defined structure, a set of parameters for play, within which one can do whatever they want and be sure that the results will be consistent within the system (not necessarily reality; 3.5e is hardly realistic, but its processes produce results that are consistent on its own terms).  The detail is needed both to provide for a potentially wide range of ability and action, and to account for the interaction of various sub-systems within the whole.

I haven't played or run it, but I own Spycraft 2.0.  I'm amazed at all the stuff you can do with it.  The rules seem well crafted, and all the possibilities offered by extrapolating from the base system actually spurs my creativity when I read any part of it: characters, gadgets, the dramatic resolution systems.  And I think that's an important part of it, too; maybe because you're playing within a structure, you feel a bit more freedom to create.  To stretch an analogy, it's like writing a haiku or a poem in sonnet form, or a traditional blues tune that has the same chords and melody as a thousand others.  Sometimes structure promotes creativity.  And, with all of Spycraft's detail, you get the feeling that the choices you make matter somehow, with trade-offs where appropriate.

Finally, detailed rules can just plain be interesting in and of themselves.  As an example from the boardgaming hobby, sometimes fighting out an armor battle with ASL scratches an itch that nothing else can.  

I've been on a much lighter rules kick lately, but sometimes a good crunchy ruleset is where it's at.

I've decided to pass on extending my thoughts on why granularity misses the point. I would be effectively talking to myself I think as no one here is likely anywhere near the same page.

I'll just leave it that granularity is the obvious effect of other more complex needs.'

Quote from: gleichmanI've decided to pass on extending my thoughts on why granularity misses the point. I would be effectively talking to myself I think as no one here is likely anywhere near the same page.

I'll just leave it that granularity is the obvious effect of other more complex needs.'

I'd like to read your thoughts.  You might shed light on the subject at hand, make people examine their answers to the original question (which is a really good one, btw) and see things from a different angle.

Quote from: KenHRI'd like to read your thoughts.  You might shed light on the subject at hand, make people examine their answers to the original question (which is a really good one, btw) and see things from a different angle.

I'll try and put together an Elements article on the subject that I can put up on my website and reference here. I think it would work better in that format.

Now that I've had time to digest all these things we've been discussing, put one of the kiddos to bed, fall asleep on a lumpy couch and wake up to a quiet house with the lights all out, I have questions:

Everything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.  How "robust" do you like your mechanic for other things?

Social interactions?

Magic/Psionics/Miracles/Superpowers?

Does the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

Quote from: VellorianEverything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.

Huh?

No it really has not.

I brought up a combat example, because it was convenient and I was asked for a singular, explicit example.

Everything else I have said has been of a broader mindset. Things like starship construction, planetary rules, tracking of social interactions... these are things that were kicking around in my head when talking about things like "depth of model."

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHuh?

No it really has not.

I brought up a combat example, because it was convenient and I was asked for a singular, explicit example.

Everything else I have said has been of a broader mindset. Things like starship construction, planetary rules, tracking of social interactions... these are things that were kicking around in my head when talking about things like "depth of model."

Okay, bad phraseology.  

"Everything I read, I interpretted to apply to combat..."

Better?  

Quote from: VellorianNow that I've had time to digest all these things we've been discussing, put one of the kiddos to bed, fall asleep on a lumpy couch and wake up to a quiet house with the lights all out, I have questions:

Everything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.  How "robust" do you like your mechanic for other things?

Social interactions?

Magic/Psionics/Miracles/Superpowers?

Does the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

It seems that different games can be 'rules light' (sorry, I hate 'lite') with respect to certain aspects of the game, and 'rules heavy' with respect to other aspects, depending on the overall purpose or focus of the game.  

Of course, some games can strive to be very detailed with respect to most/all situations likely to arise during the game (I suppose that HERO might be an example of such a game), while others might be very general with respect to most/all situations likely to arise during the game (FUDGE).

Rolemaster and D&D 3e are games with very specific, detailed rules for combat and magic.  This is, I suppose, because those games are aimed at people who want a high degree of 'detail' and 'meaningful, different options' during combat.  In contrast, Rolemaster and D&D 3e have rather general, abstract skill systems for all noncombat tasks (essentially, roll + modifiers, beat the target number).  Presumably people who play these games don't want detailed rules for picking locks, deciphering scripts, etc.  A general, abstract mechanic suffices for all such tasks.

Quote from: VellorianDoes the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

My post wasn't about combat, either, but along the lines of what Caesar Slaad said.

A game that treats all its components with a detail similar to what most do for combat again has that feel of consistency.  If all aspects of the model are built with the same level of detail and abstraction, the design feels solid.  I'm never quite able to articulate this point very well, but this applies to rules heavy and light games equally: Classic Trav's various systems treat their subjects with a similar level of fidelity, especially when you stick to the basic three books; combat feels just as abstract as does trading, starship building, star system generation, etc.  This type of consistency is a big draw to me.

As far as your skills example, sometimes it's fun to have a "Skill A does X..." system.  For some people, it plays into suspension of disbelief.  Using every skill feels different, rather than "I rolled a 4, missed the difficulty by 6," which is the same no matter what it is you are doing.