Quote from: ColonelHardissonPerhaps you took my use of the word "secure" to equate with "protection." If so, I didn't quite mean it that way. The only "protection" I was referring to, in so many words, was against having the game get bogged down by confusion caused by gaps in the rules. Even the most well-reasoned people can disagree about how something should be handled when there is either no rule or precedent for what is being attempted.

In case anyone decides to bring it up, yeah, I realize the implications of more robust systems. They can be exploited by rules lawyering, and can, if one is unfamiliar with them, bog down the game as they are interpreted on the fly. Page flipping is also a slowdown as specific rules are rooted out. But I do know that once everyone is familiar with the rules, or if even just one person is really familiar with them, the game can run smoothly and quickly.

In my gaming experience, primarily as the GM, and usually as the only one who took the time to read the game mechanics (sometimes even the only one who read the setting details...), I don't think I've ever encountered a situation where the players felt the need to debate about the application of the rules.

Is that what you're saying?  

Where a GM would encounter a situation like this:

GM: "You fall out of the building and take X damage."  
P1: "I only fell 10 feet."
GM: "Yes, but you took X damage."
P2: "Have you read the falling rules, GM?"
GM: "Yes, I have.  They're on page 144.  He takes X damage."
P1: "That doesn't make sense!  I only fell 10 feet!"
P2: "Yeah,  he only fell 10 feet."
GM: (Opens book, points to chart, shows that he has to roll 2D6 and he got a 10.)
P1: "Oh.  Okay.  I took X damage."
P2: "Bummer roll, dude."

Is that what you're talking about, albeit simplified?

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree with you that most 'rules lite' systems do have mechanics to cover all relevant game situations.

This debate often comes down to how much detail people like those mechanics to have -- i.e., how 'fine-grained' the mechanics in question should be.

And let's add in "how much skill is required" to succeed in actual play.

Most simple rule systems are "decide to engage or not"- resolve combat in a die roll or two. The only time skilled play comes into effect that first decision (fight or not).

In a heavier game system, victory is only decided after a number of decisions- each of which (in a well designed system) have a part in determining the outcome.

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree with you that most 'rules lite' systems do have mechanics to cover all relevant game situations.

This debate often comes down to how much detail people like those mechanics to have -- i.e., how 'fine-grained' the mechanics in question should be.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Akrasia!  What you said was what was mulling and plunking in my mind and you put words to it.  Thank you!  

It's a matter of detail.  Shadowrun, though somewhat heavy on rules in general, is light on the combat side because it's abstract.  It's not blow-for-blow, but abstracts a single conflict to see who came out on top in the end and a lot of people who don't like Shadowrun tend to bring up combat.

As Caesar Slaad said before you, some games give a pinpoint accuracy on where you were hit, while other games don't.  I can remember playing a game that gave detailed information down to 10 second intervals for how long it would take you to bleed to death after taking a wound to the neck that was penetrating versus cutting.

Granularity, then, is what I was missing.

Quote from: VellorianIt's a matter of detail.  Shadowrun, though somewhat heavy on rules in general, is light on the combat side because it's abstract.  It's not blow-for-blow, but abstracts a single conflict to see who came out on top in the end and a lot of people who don't like Shadowrun tend to bring up combat.

Are we thinking of the same Shadowrun? Perhaps this is the 3rd edition.

Quote from: VellorianGranularity, then, is what I was missing.

I don't think the PoV I was putting forward was driven by Granularity. But I'm think I'm seriously outnumbered here so that's forgivable.

Quote from: gleichmanAre we thinking of the same Shadowrun? Perhaps this is the 3rd edition.

In every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.  This was supposed to represent "several blows exchanged back and forth for the duration of the action."

That was 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.  I don't know about 4th, though.

Quote from: VellorianIn every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.

Ah, hand-to-hand.

It's been a while since I've played SR, and I was recalling ranged combat and that wasn't want I'd call abstract compared to other major systems.

Quote from: VellorianIn every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.  This was supposed to represent "several blows exchanged back and forth for the duration of the action."

That was 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.  I don't know about 4th, though.

Fourth edition did away with the give and take melee, and I for one miss it. I think the interpretation is slightly different than 'abstracted series of blows' however.  An attempt at an attack could leave you open for a counterattack instead, so it was 'one exchange', rather than a series.  that was always my take.

Quote from: VellorianCan you give me an example of a game that is "rules lite" that doesn't have "an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question?"

A caveat: my definition of rules lite may differ from yours. Let's see. Decipher's "Lord of the Rings" RPG would likely be called rules-medium by many. As far as combat is concerned, I'd call it rules-lite. The group I was GMing it for became a lot more secure, and had a better handle on things, once I adopted the use of a battlemat and minis (very simple ones; at times we used dice). I did this so they could find and keep track of the position and distance of all combatants. I also used a few elements from D&D/d20 combat once they began asking about specific combat maneuvers, which also gave them confidence in the game. Once I began running it more like D&D/d20 combat, the players relaxed; they enjoyed having rules-codified actions to employ. When I was running it straight, they - and I, admittedly - were at a bit of a loss at times, as we wrangled around with combat possibilities and how to handle them. It slowed the game down. Once we established there were hard rules that could be used, the game sped up.

I'm sorry I'm not explaining that well.

Quote from: SpikeAn attempt at an attack could leave you open for a counterattack instead, so it was 'one exchange', rather than a series.  that was always my take.

Few games reduce the abstraction level for melee combat below 'an short exchange of blows'.

Quote from: gleichmanAh, hand-to-hand.

It's been a while since I've played SR, and I was recalling ranged combat and that wasn't want I'd call abstract compared to other major systems.

Yes, 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?  

If so, this could explain a lot about what I like in general.  I don't like books that are full of detailed descriptions of events or things.  I like it fairly simple and straightforward.  If it's not important to the story, then I don't need a description of it.  I find that conversations that have a few descriptive elements appeal to me much more than page after page of tedious description (Stephen King fits this example).  

I am discovering of late, however, that extensive descriptions of character thought processes are intriguing me.  

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

Quote from: VellorianSo, 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?  

It can be, but that doesn't have to be the driving force.

Quote from: AkrasiaI agree with you that most 'rules lite' systems do have mechanics to cover all relevant game situations.

This debate often comes down to how much detail people like those mechanics to have -- i.e., how 'fine-grained' the mechanics in question should be.

I can live with that distinction. Rules lite games often have rules that cover a situations in general rather than in detail. I want more specific rules, and, thus, more granularity.

Nice clarification.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think the PoV I was putting forward was driven by Granularity. But I'm think I'm seriously outnumbered here so that's forgivable.

Having had this argument with Akrasia before, I do see it as something of a missing link between the two extremes. The term I uses was fidelity, but I think we are hitting around the same point.

You allude to "needing more skill". This could be a statement about incorporating GM techniques that I alluded to earlier. But you could also be talking about the sort of thing that I hammered out with Akrasia last year (IIRC).

What takes skill? One thing I was approaching as taking skill was "correctness of model." With an abstract system that relies on GM judgement for application, the system will only produce so many refinements in detail and relies on the GM to apply those results to produce something the players will find satisfactory and conducive to the role playing experience. Some players are pickier than others and some GMs are better at this than others. So for those who demand more "granularity" or "fidelity" (my preference), it is more demanding for a GM to do so consistently without the benefit of forethought.

Is that what you are getting at? Are we walking around the same element blindfolded?

Quote from: VellorianIs that what you're talking about, albeit simplified?

Hmm. I think this aspect of the discussion has been obviated by Akrasia pointing out that it's granularity rather than an actual lack of rules we're discussing here.

Quote from: VellorianSo, 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?

It can also be a measure of how many or which areas are given detail. Which could be a measure of target audience. You have gunbunnies, you have starship builders, you have armchair martial artists, etc.