And now you're having an argument about who cares least about the previous argument nobody cared about.  Well played, gentlemen,  well played.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd now you're having an argument about who cares least about the previous argument nobody cared about.  Well played, gentlemen,  well played.

It's all about keeping the thread at the top of the board!

Quote from: blakkieIt's all about keeping the thread at the top of the board!

LOL!

Quote from: blakkieIt was a reference to this.

Yeah, crystal clear!

Now shuffle along.

Wrong quote, Waldo. Look to post 56.   I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is limited to Webster references.

Of course... as I pointed out earlier, if you wanted me absent from the discussion, you should have avoided invoking me.  Tempt not the angry yellow rodent... :cool:

Quote from: SpikeOf course... as I pointed out earlier, if you wanted me absent from the discussion, you should have avoided invoking me.  Tempt not the angry yellow rodent... :cool:

Nobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Quote from: James McMurrayNobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Well of course it is a desperate cry for attention.  Why do you think I responded? Am I so cruel as to leave him starving in the thread, desperately craving the response he needs, wanting to reply with some cutting remark he has undoubtedly been honing while he awaits his prey?

Of course not. After all, you have to teach them how to hunt for themselves at some point... otherwise you just have to do it all for them.

Quote from: James McMurrayNobody who says "shuffle along" really wants the person they're addressing to leave. It's a derisive statement intended to garner at least one more post out of someone. Well done, blakkie.

Thanks! The topic has been pretty much mined out I think.  But my little pet rat Spike is being really, really helpful.  Not only does he keep posting, but he is posting really silly things like. "Oh I just don't care about 'original'. And you should have known that I was going to make it crystal clear in a post before I posted, a post which features an arguement about how Let It Ride isn't 'original'."

With 'enemies' like that who needs friends?

Quote from: WilYou know this is retarded. If anyone claimed that the mechanic was "original" they're full of shit and if anyone claimed that the mechanic was invented 3000 years ago they're full of shit. It's there, in The Burning Wheel, and that is what is being discussed. Suffice it to say that the current incarnation of the rule in the Burning Wheel is most likely what gamers on this site are familiar with and anyone else has more important things to do than argue about rules anyway and leave it at that.

I found it useful and have applied it, the fact it is strikingly obvious is what made it so useful to me in fact, obvious as it is it had somehow escaped me and I was sometimes making people keep rolling unnecessarily.

Me, I don't care if it's original, ancient, whatever.  I care about whether it's useful to me, and this was.

Why it's promoting so much argument I have no idea, it's basically a piece of GM advice and as such one can take it or leave it as one sees fit.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI can understand Pundit's point of view. From my point of view, the rule is stupid too. I get to decide when to roll.

However, I do think it could be a service to certain anal-retentive gamers who need it spelled out that they don't have to roll all the time. I suppose a lot of folks here will not find this concept novel. Surprisingly, I think some gamers need the advice.

It's like all those threads of malajusted gamers on RPG.net asking what to do about the stinky group member who empties the fridge every session. Any normal person knows what to do (ditch his ass). Some gamers just aren't normal persons and need the obvious to be pointed out.

I'm also reminded of those "magic isn't real" disclaimers in some game books. It's scary but I think they might actually be useful sometimes. I prefer not to know when, though.

The thing is, it does no harm sometimes to be reminded of the obvious.  I'm generally not an A-R GM but I found this a useful little bit of advice, obvious sure but it was a trap I had occasionally fallen into.

It's getting blown out of proportion here.  I had a chat with a guy a while back in which we were discussing the same book, and each of us had found one bit of it really obvious and the other bit really useful.  The irony was, we had found different sections obvious and useful as it turned out.

Quote from: blakkieThanks! The topic has been pretty much mined out I think.  But my little pet rat Spike is being really, really helpful.  Not only does he keep posting, but he is posting really silly things like. "Oh I just don't care about 'original'. And you should have known that I was going to make it crystal clear in a post before I posted, a post which features an arguement about how Let It Ride isn't 'original'."

With 'enemies' like that who needs friends?

Needs more work, waldo. If that was the best you could manage when I left you plenty of openings you need far more help than I can give you.

Quote from: jhkimAnd no, I don't find that the first a helpful answer.  You're putting "best" as a choice, but that's what everyone wants -- they just have different ideas about what is best.  I mean, is anyone really going to say "No, I'd like what isn't best"?  

Can you suggest some examples of when you think it's best to make a bunch of repetitive rolls?

Sure.

There are times when I play that I want to really help emulate the setting - including the world, it's "workings" and "physics" and so forth, according to the level of "crunch" of the rules. (EDIT: most times I lean towards a level of emulation that, to me, gets swamped in broader scale resolution approaches) So let's assume I'm playing D&D.  In order to emulate typical "physics" according to the D&D Rules, one should role every 15'. So, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'. I've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?  How far will I be when I fall and will that damage (determined by height) put me down for the count? If I make it, what awaits me?

(EDIT 2: Is D&D the best for emulation? I doubt it.  My god, some of the Gulliver rules for earlier GURPS and stuff makes my head spin with the level of crunch. But it's a level I like.)

So, yeah. Does that help?

QuoteSo, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'.

If the other people at the table feel this way (and aren't face palming like I likely would ) great, rock on! By definition the climbing of each increment is interesting to you. As mentioned before I think this works best in situation where you can keep a tight reign on the physical scale, so dungeons and like areas are a natural fit for it.

QuoteI've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?

Sure it can and does happen. Unfortunately from what I've seen the hit-miss ratio and time spent on it tends to be a really poor investment.  It also tends to get in the way of keeping the attention/dice rolling hoping around the table.

That's probably the biggest difference I've noticed when switching to BW. Side quests become far more feasible and tolerable to the others around the table.  Coupling it with the idea of a scene cut and "say yes, or roll dice" (with liberal and prudent use of "yes") you can have entire journeys, meetings, battles, intrigue and such wrapped up in minutes with so much action [EDIT: and tense dice rolls!] packed in and so little dead time that they feel even less like an interuption. Plus you are using the characters skills just like you would when using a smaller scale time/distance so it tends to maintain that feeling that your character really did do these things.

Quote from: James J SkachSo let's assume I'm playing D&D.  In order to emulate typical "physics" according to the D&D Rules, one should role every 15'. So, my foremost goal is emulation at the level provided by the D&D rules (as a means to achieve my fun), I enjoy rolling every 15'. I've been in situations where this did (contrary to someone's statement here that to say so is bullshit) increase tension - will I make the entire climb?  How far will I be when I fall and will that damage (determined by height) put me down for the count? If I make it, what awaits me?

OK, fair enough.  It is indeed an opinion differs thing.  I am somewhat surprised, though there people who argue for linear pre-plotting as well.  

Having played D&D as well as equivalent climbing mechanics in other games, I always found them dull as dishwater.  From my point of view, I'd much prefer to get those answers in a single roll or two.  If you get the overall chance of a fall, the height of the fall occurs at a random point on a climb.  In principle, this would be different if there were something happening every round -- like climbing during a fight.  However, I've experienced some of that as well and I still found the rolling dull and annoying.

Mr. Kim and Blakkie,

First, thanks for understanding.  I'm thrilled we could come to some common understanding, and with two of the more vociferous voices here - wow.

But...I hate to do it...well..I'll put it out there and let you decide if you want ot react or just consider me an asshole and move on.

You see, it's great that we've come to agree on my assertion that the granularity of resolution is a matter of taste. But...

I find it interesting that I, IMHO, had to essentially prove to you that I could actually enjoy this approach.

I find it interesting that after you agree (hey, I convinced you someone could actually enjoy rolling for every 15' of climbing - and add tension!), you go on to tell me how I'm rare for doing so (the hit-miss ratio is bad) and how I'm messing with flow (it keeps the attention from hoping around the table).

I find it interesting that after you agree, you call my tastes as dull as dishwater.

I find it interesting that after you agree it's a matter of taste you both go on to extoll the virtues of your approach - essentially explaining again why it's better.

Now please, before you fire up your fingers and start with the flaming retort, please understand I'm not upset and I'm not calling into question your intentions.  I don't think you intended to come across this way. But it always strikes me that sometimes people don't even realize how condescending they can appear, even when trying to be polite. I personally think this is why hackles get raised.  And then when the person is called on it - they're baffled as they certainly didn't intentionally mean it that way.

OK, so if you're still reading, my question is:
Since we've agreed that resolution granularity is a matter of taste - how does that impact design? Is it best to choose one and assume that each game will have that one point on the scale? Would we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group? Because after all, we're trying to improve gaming and game design, right? Not convince everyone ours is the One True Way...

Probably for another thread...

Quote from: James J SkachI find it interesting that I, IMHO, had to essentially prove to you that I could actually enjoy this approach.

You've proved nothing other than you are a wrongbad thinker! LOL, ok ok seriously though. I guess you didn't pick up during the talk about "traditional dungeons" where I didn't need any such proof of the existance of such preference.

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree (hey, I convinced you someone could actually enjoy rolling for every 15' of climbing - and add tension!), you go on to tell me how I'm rare for doing so (the hit-miss ratio is bad) and how I'm messing with flow (it keeps the attention from hoping around the table).

First with hit/miss I'm refering to specific instances of the rolling, not people.  But I will say that what I've heard hear, and from my personal observations over the years, that you are relatively rare if you consistantly derive enjoyment from always following playing at the 15' rule. Note rare but not entirely alone, hey somebody out there plays Advanced Squad Leader too and that makes D&D look like a couple of grade schoolers playing cops & robbers. Could it be further exaggerated by the selection of senarios that you typically play? Maybe, or whatever.  I'll tolerate playing that way myself to a point, but mostly it is the senario's dimensions being fitted to the rules that makes it palatible. *shrug*

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree, you call my tastes as dull as dishwater.

Did I actually say dull as dishwater? I'd rather word it as playing the game to your desired tastes, at least without heavily tweaking the senario, would have me either just getting up, walking away, and not coming back or, if I'm feeling particularly melodramatic, repeatedly hammering my head on the table.

QuoteI find it interesting that after you agree it's a matter of taste you both go on to extoll the virtues of your approach - essentially explaining again why it's better.

I think you're just a tad oversensitive here.

EDIT: Oops, missed this part.

QuoteWould we be better served in trying to find a way that allows a single set of rules to slide the scale as needed/desired by the group?

Er, but that IS at the core of Let It Ride. I'll add though that even though it is flexible enough to you could theoretically switch to a 15' interval or something all the time, there are really good reasons why the results would be poor in BW. That list of 5 items I posted a ways back...taking out #5 for you I guess.  Likely much better to go with different game engines for different uses. I will say though that the one person that I know personally that was the most tolerating and/or enjoyed the D&D RAW really, really appreciates the results of Let It Ride in action.