Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545090No.

 you don't know what I meant when I said "you need as much rules as required but...". How big that space is depends entirely on how one addresses this first part. And however answers it, it doesn't translate to "cant be bothered by rules". You really need to stop leaping to conclusions. What I said was pretty broad in scope and doesn't automatically mean what you seem to think it means (in fact is quite unlikely to mean that).

English is English dude and the sentence...

Quote"Most likely they were saying you need as much rules as are required but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible. "

...clearly says "the least amount of rules" and the "Most human judgement" to me.


Do you wish to change it to:

"you need as clear and complete rules as required to simulation the setting, with human judgement filling in for rare failures of those rules"

Because they are two different statements.

Quote from: gleichman;545069(Age of Heroes which no one knows anything about will also work).

I can attest to that, AoH is sound design, the crunch is worth it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545100I will give it a look.

It's a heavy design, although not IMO as heavy as D&D 3.x, 4.x or HERO System.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545100If the systen breaks down, I am going to overule it rather than accept it as a consequence of the system's abstraction. That is one of the major reasons to have a GM.

That's a completely different subject and a rather fun one.

I imagine I'm a rare one that will side in favor of the system abstraction. Likely because I took the time to understand what it is doing.

Quote from: gleichman;545101English is English dude and the sentence...



...clearly says "the least amount of rules" and the "Most human judgement" to me.


Do you wish to change it to:

"you need as clear and complete rules as required to simulation the setting, with human judgement filling for rare failures of those rules"

Because they are two different statements.

It doesn't need to be changed. You just persist in exagerating the meaning of the original statement. I am not going to engage in semantic hairsplitting on my phrasing. If you want to be wrong about what I said, feel free to be wrong.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545106It doesn't need to be changed. You just persist in exagerating the meaning of the original statement. I am not going to engage in semantic hairsplitting on my phrasing. If you want to be wrong about what I said, feel free to be wrong.

I'm willing at this point to admit that I have no idea what you're trying to say then. And you seem unwilling to try a different phrasing.

Complete impasse then.

Quote from: gleichman;545110I'm willing at this point to admit that I have no idea what you're trying to say then. And you seem unwilling to try a different phrasing.

Complete impasse then.

It is your approach. It is insulting.  If you dont understand me, just say so i am happy to add some clarity.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545114It is your approach. It is insulting.  If you dont understand me, just say so i am happy to add some clarity.

I've asked three times so far.

Make it four now. What exactly is your view of "Rulings Not Rules"?

Quote from: Sean !;545102I can attest to that, AoH is sound design, the crunch is worth it.

It might be, but given that Gleichman recommends it, I wonder if I'll need a young Priest and an old Priest to unwrap it.

Quote from: gleichman;545117I've asked three times so far.

Make it four now. What exactly is your view of "Rulings Not Rules"?

No, you didn't ask for clarification. You insulted:

QuoteYou do know what you're saying when you say "but optimally have as much space of the game handled by human judgement as possible" don't you?

It means that you consider the optimal case to be the maximum amount of human whim possible (and that's a freakn' lot).

Which is exacty what I've said you an they have said.

How can you be so detached from your own words

But to restate and rephrase, I think rulings not rules could mean an awful lot (it is vague) but in this case probably means something like having as many rules as are required for believability and playability and leaving as much space for the human element as is possible within this.  That isn't least amount of rules most amount of GM whim, that is more about striking the right balance and making sure you dont have so many rules the game gets bogged down. And really the more I think about rulings not rules, I think it may also just be a caution about loopholes and the letter of the law (making sure the spirit of the law is obeyed over the letter of the law).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545120No, you didn't ask for clarification. You insulted:

I'm starting to think disagreement insults you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545120But to restate and rephrase, I think rulings not rules could mean an awful lot (it is vague) but in this case probably means something like having as many rules as are required for believability and playability and leaving as much space for the human element as is possible within this.

You are still using the phrase "leaving as much space for the human element as is possible".

To me, that means only one thing. The GM may do whatever he wants in the combat rules, whenever he wants, as much as he wants.

That's a far cry from:

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545120"I think it may also just be a caution about loopholes and the letter of the law (making sure the spirit of the law is obeyed over the letter of the law).".

Which means that in extreme case the GM may overule the system.

Which is it?

Quote from: gleichman;545121I'm starting to think disagreement insults you.

No. I am fine with you disagreeing with me.

QuoteYou are still using the phrase "leaving as much space for the human element as is possible".

To me, that means only one thing. The GM may do whatever he wants in the combat rules, whenever he wants, as much as he wants.

Well, that isn't what I meant. Remember this is about you making the point that the posters here were essentially saying they couldn't be bothered by rules or consistency. I was making the point that this was a leap. That it seems to be more about striking the right balance and retaining enough human judgement in the process. now, you don't have to agree that is the best approach (and clearly you don't). That doesn't mean they just want to be able to ignore rules. For what it is worth I prefer to do things very by the book, except when the book gets in the way of believabiity. Where you and I likely diverge is I prefer rules light systems. But even within those systems I am very much about rules transparency and consistency with my players.

QuoteThat's a far cry from:



Which means that in extreme case the GM may overule the system.

Which is it?

I dont thin it is either of the extremes you are suggesting.

I would say the GM overules when appropriate, however frequent that might be.

Edit: just to touch on the last quote. I made that as additional speculation on what the posters meant beause (as I Said from the start) it is vague and could mean lot of things. So I was kind of saying it could be either one of those possibilities. Because again, it is a vague phrase.

I don't think the rules lawyering v. Rulings not rules debate, nor the physical representation v. Theater of the Mind approaches can be directly linked to rules heavy v. Rules light. I don't think the amount of rules is critical here. It's what you want to achieve with them, and what you think their place is in the equation that makes a role playing game that matter here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545122I would say the GM overules when appropriate, however frequent that might be.

I think the actual meaning of the world 'Frequent' is key.

I will say that going without a map and mini (or it's equal) for a game system that has ranges and line of sight rules (all versions of D&D, HERO, Gurps, Age of Heroes, etc) 'frequent' is for all purposes constantly.

If combat bonuses are awarded solely upon GM judgement, frequent is for all purposes constantly.

And when frequent is constantly, the game may be fairly described as "Mother My I" as the source of all important awards and information has but a single source and the player is dependent upon the whims thereof- the GM (i.e. Mother).

Quote from: Sean !;545102I can attest to that, AoH is sound design, the crunch is worth it.

Wow! Thanks.

Quote from: Benoist;545124I don't think the rules lawyering v. Rulings not rules debate, nor the physical representation v. Theater of the Mind approaches can be directly linked to rules heavy v. Rules light. I don't think the amount of rules is critical here. It's what you want to achieve with them, and what you think their place is in the equation that makes a role playing game that matter here.

I do agree these are all kind of seperate issues. One could do theatre of the mind with a very robust rules system that handles all kinds of specific circumstances. One can play with miniatures using a rules light system (i do it with savage worlds for example). There has been some muddying of the waters over the course of the debate.