Rules: elegant and poor

[lampwright]

I was curious which rules in the ADRPG people felt worked and which did not. For the sake of this discussion, I will define good and poor rules as:

A good rule as one that helps the moderator, is clear to the players, and encourages game balance.

A poor rule as one that requires routine moderator intervention, is unclear, or disturbs game balance.

I will also give a brief example of each (as it seems to me, at least.)

Good rule -- Attribute auction: While we don't always use the auction, it is an excellent idea. It is easy for the moderator to carry out, clear as to how it is performed, and encourages game balance but tempting players to spend extra on attributes, thus limiting the amount spent on powers and lowering the initial power level.

Poor rule -- conjuring: In the system as written, the limit on conjuring is time spent, but time is a free commodity a person can get by walking to a fast-time shadow. This then puts the burden of game balance on the moderator, requiring fixes of various types (from limiting fast time shadows, to running rough-shod over the players, etc.)


Often, when one brings up this subject, the first answers given are particular fixes that a particular moderator tried for a particular game. This is understandable, since to many people the ADRPG system is a guide rather than a rulebook - something we look at to inspire us for games that are only roughly based on the rules as written -- which is in keeping with the intended spirit of the game.

However, in this case, I am curious about the rules themselves.

Thanks!

[RPGPundit]

Yes, I think that the only rules I would think are potentially "poor" in the sense that they could be better are the rules on Magic.    I don't know that they "unbalance the game", but they're quite complicated, depend on a lot of DM interpretation, and if the GM doesn't work hard at making it clear how much hard work magic is to do and to maintain, it can be misinterpreted to be more powerful than it should be.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Good rule: Attributes - The attributes are relatively clear-cut and allow the moderator to figure out 'who wins' with a minimum of fuss

Poor rule: Auctions - A bit too complicated to elucidate here, but in short, I think it relies too much on the moderator's ability to "sell" the idea that bidding in them is a good idea.

(Yes, this is not new, I've stated it before)

[Arref]

Good rule: speed of attributes, demonstrates that in a crunch, some decisions will precede others, while various conflict impacts may happen at the same time.

Bad rule: building demons and constructs, way too complex for the value added to the game.

[RPGPundit]

Poor rule: Auctions - A bit too complicated to elucidate here, but in short, I think it relies too much on the moderator's ability to "sell" the idea that bidding in them is a good idea.

I've never had that problem.

RPGPundit

[Malleus Arianorum]

I think it depends on the group. The bidding war is just too exciting for some people.

[SunBoy]

Good rule: everything but...
Poor rule: Magic (especially Conjuration, yeah), and
Weird rule: Advanced Pattern Mastery. I've found that that's the one that requires most interpretation and control. Of course, it's too expensive to be a daily concern.

[Otha]

I've never had that problem.

RPGPundit

Then you must be good at selling it, or else have players for whom it's an easy sell, or both.  Played as-written, I can't see any reason to participate.