Adeptus B: "I absolutely agree that the system is prone to abuse, but that doesn't justify making it even worse ."

Fair point, agreed. I do think a slot system has some merits, though. I often find that something being bulky is far more cumbersome than an object merely being heavy. Perhaps the best way to deal with encumberance and carrying capacity is to assign 'volume' to characters as per height and containers.

Adeptus B: "I absolutely agree that the system is prone to abuse, but that doesn't justify making it even worse ."

Fair point, agreed. I do think a slot system has some merits, though. I often find that something being bulky is far more cumbersome than an object merely being heavy. Perhaps the best way to deal with encumberance and carrying capacity is to assign 'volume' to characters as per height and containers.

A system like that would be interesting to see, but at the same time, it sounds very fiddly, and I ask myself how it'd work in practice. Also, it doesn't exactly invalidate Weight-based Encumbrance - it'd still be an issue. Sand bags can be packed well enough and fill just about any space, but you're still not going to be able to haul that many of them around.

Cogniczar posted a pretty neat equipment sheet somewhere, that could be used, but it all becomes a little bit too fiddly for my taste, and more simulationist than I'd enjoy, even though I do like it when players keep track of how their characters actually carry the things they are hauling around, rather than merely tracking weight.

They only lock when actual insults (towards users not themselves) are thrown.

Usually not then, either, sadly. For all intents and purposes, the forum is rules-less and moderator-less. You have to levvy a crazy amount of reports for them to ever do anything against anyone or anything.

Says the guy partly responsible for the word filter being activated on this forum.

They only lock when actual insults (towards users not themselves) are thrown.

Usually not then, either, sadly. For all intents and purposes, the forum is rules-less and moderator-less. You have to levvy a crazy amount of reports for them to ever do anything against anyone or anything.

Says the guy partly responsible for the word filter being activated on this forum.

Also, I think that the word filter was always on, it was just some crusading nincompoop's neurotic meltdown(s) that forced the addition of more words to it. The number of words in the filter appears to be abysmal (thankfully).

I don't see how it's worthwile to throw accusations around - how does your (erroneous) claim even relate to what I said? It merely comes across as petty and out of context, below even you, Nimsim. Did you finally get so tired of arguing the meaningless that you purposfully try to derail and start flamewars, or are you merely sockpuppeting?

It's been civil so far, there's no reason to try to push for a lock of the thread just because you're not enjoying the conversation.

For some reason, some have a huge problem with thinking of the rules as a frame of reference for the GM in order to give him a foundation to arbitrate.

While this is a totally valid way to approach games, it is also a very old approach (I understand this was how the original D&D was meant to be played). Modern games have done away with this and present the rules as the framework through which the players (GM included) interact with the narrative.

I personally find the 'rules are for arbitration' design methodology to be outdated and don't really enjoy playing games designed that way.

This difference in the purpose of the rules is probably the foundation of this whole disagreement over the encumbrance system.

I think you've arrived at a topic worth discussing, fsdfsdgf.

Could you give us some examples of the difference? Preferably by constrasting how the two different styles deal with the same issues or topics?

some crusading nincompoop's neurotic meltdown(s)

Could you give us some examples of the difference? Preferably by constrasting how the two different styles deal with the same issues or topics?

Now, again, that's a fine way to do things, but I'm sure you can see some problems with it (everything at the whim of the GM, for one).

For the second, I'm going to use FATE as an example because I think it's a good example of a game where the players and GM are on equal footing in terms of narrative control and because the rules are free online for you read for yourself. In the FATE system, there's a mechanic called Aspects that exist for the players to use to do cool things and for the GM to introduce setbacks and challenges to the PCs. The rules are transparent as to what's going on and the players and GM both use them to affect the story in roughly the same way. There's not really a need for rules to arbitrate disputes because the system is very transparent in terms of what you can and can't do.

Now, in FATE there's no reason to go around looting everything so encumbrance is not a great example to compare/contrast, but let's roll with it. If Jim want's to pick up a tree trunk and hurl it through the air (and let's say the GM isn't super okay with that), under the arbitration model the GM would look up Jim's strength, the weight of the trunk, and if it weighed too much, sorry Jim you can't do that. Rules say so. In the FATE system, Jim doesn't need the GM's permission - he can do anything so long as he can beat the test's difficulty. Aspects like I'm The Strongest Man Around! or Hey, This Is Balsa Wood! would go in Jim's favor, while the GM could introduce negative aspects to make it harder.

Other examples welcome, this isn't super well written.

some crusading nincompoop's neurotic meltdown(s)

Hi there. I still have the posts you authored saved if anyone cares to read what you're obliquely referring to and judge for themselves which of us was in the right on that one. Let me know if you'd like to go back and read what you wrote before doubling-down on how right you were.

Could you give us some examples of the difference? Preferably by constrasting how the two different styles deal with the same issues or topics?

For the first, someone who knows more can probably write something more in depth, but briefly from what I understand when D&D was first a thing and the only game in town, the assumption was that the GM would know all the rules of the game and the players were actually told not to read them. Instead, they would tell the GM what they wanted to do and the GM would tell them what to roll, if it succeeded, and so on. Basically, the game was a black box the players could only interact with through the GM.

Now, again, that's a fine way to do things, but I'm sure you can see some problems with it (everything at the whim of the GM, for one).

For the second, I'm going to use FATE as an example because I think it's a good example of a game where the players and GM are on equal footing in terms of narrative control and because the rules are free online for you read for yourself. In the FATE system, there's a mechanic called Aspects that exist for the players to use to do cool things and for the GM to introduce setbacks and challenges to the PCs. The rules are transparent as to what's going on and the players and GM both use them to affect the story in roughly the same way. There's not really a need for rules to arbitrate disputes because the system is very transparent in terms of what you can and can't do.

Now, in FATE there's no reason to go around looting everything so encumbrance is not a great example to compare/contrast, but let's roll with it. If Jim want's to pick up a tree trunk and hurl it through the air (and let's say the GM isn't super okay with that), under the arbitration model the GM would look up Jim's strength, the weight of the trunk, and if it weighed too much, sorry Jim you can't do that. Rules say so. In the FATE system, Jim doesn't need the GM's permission - he can do anything so long as he can beat the test's difficulty. Aspects like I'm The Strongest Man Around! or Hey, This Is Balsa Wood! would go in Jim's favor, while the GM could introduce negative aspects to make it harder.

Other examples welcome, this isn't super well written.

No, I think you summed it up pretty clearly.

Question, though. In the example you said that the PC can do anything so long as he can beat the test's difficulty. How does the difficulty get set?

Regarding Responses to my criticisms of the Movement system:

I still stand by the assertion that the RAW movement system, which is a pretty integral part of combat balance and a way of differentiating characters who have higher agilities, requires a grid in order to be properly implemented (or some other distance measure and visual representation. As an example, GM's will be hard-pressed to properly represent the difference between an Ag Bonus 3 and Ag Bonus 4 character moving about in combat without using a grid to track their movements. Even in a long range firefight, that movement could still be relevant. I will put forth a modified criticism.

In order for players to get any use out of their Agility Bonus/movement modifiers, they have to hope that the GM runs combats using a grid or exacting distances. In order for certain combat actions to be of use, the GM has to run combats using a grid or exacting distances.

As for the example put forth of a combat in which movement was very important, I think it's important to note that this was a well-designed set-piece battle by the GM that emphasized movement. The rules don't really do anything to encourage this kind of encounter design, or to help the GM with it. If the GM is not really on the ball, the rules are going to default to players just sitting in one place.

For fgdsfg:

No one was having a meltdown over you using certain words. People asked you to stop using it as a courtesy, and you were the one who resorted to histrionics (then, and now). I only brought it up as I found it was a humorous context to you complaining that moderators are a non-presence on the board.

For some reason, some have a huge problem with thinking of the rules as a frame of reference for the GM in order to give him a foundation to arbitrate.

While this is a totally valid way to approach games, it is also a very old approach (I understand this was how the original D&D was meant to be played). Modern games have done away with this and present the rules as the framework through which the players (GM included) interact with the narrative.

I personally find the 'rules are for arbitration' design methodology to be outdated and don't really enjoy playing games designed that way.

This difference in the purpose of the rules is probably the foundation of this whole disagreement over the encumbrance system.

I think you've arrived at a topic worth discussing, fsdfsdgf.

Could you give us some examples of the difference? Preferably by constrasting how the two different styles deal with the same issues or topics?

cps has already described a bit on the "player access to rules vs. GM access to rules" side of things. I would also add that if you take the two opinions/approaches of "The GM uses guidelines to make rulings" vs. "the GM follows rules for challenging the players," you'll find that the actual rules of the game frequently lean toward one approach or the other. For simplicity's sake, I'll call these approach A and approach B, respectively.

Let's take a hypothetical situation, in which the players want to train a pterodactyl to drop bombs on people's heads. There are four main possibilities for how the rules handle this.

1) There are clear rules on how to train a pterodactyl to drop bombs/there are clear rules that explicitly generalize to training bombardactyls

2) There are no rules whatsoever on how to train a Battle Bombardactyl/there are no rules that explicitly generalize to training Barry the Battle Bombardactyl

3) There are very general rules that could abstractly relate to training Barry the Battling Bastard Bombardactyl (e.g. just pick a related skill and do a skill check)

4) The players/GM forgot the rules or don't know the rules for how to train Barry, the Battling Bastard Bombardactyl of the Bombay Blitz

In the first case, the rules are clearly wanting the GM to go with approach B. The rules may say "oh but you can do either approach," but this is clearly pushing the GM toward approach B, because why else would he bother buying the rulebook?

In the second case, conversely, the rules force the GM to go with approach A. He's got to just make something up. This is arguably not even good for approach A, as there are no guidelines for the GM to go with beyond the most basic mechanics of the game. This situation will probably rarely show up.

In the third case, you suddenly have a case where both approaches could work. Approach B would be following the rules that were generalized from, while Approach A would be using judgment on what rules should be generalized from. So you get a combination of both.

In the fourth case, you basically have something similar to the second case. The GM doesn't know of any rules to use, so he just makes something up. Again, as there are no actual guidelines being used, this doesn't really fit either approach.

So you can see that in each of these four cases, 2 of them can involve approach B, while only 1 really involves approach A. Cases 1 and 3 are likely going to be the most common cases to come up in games, followed by case 4, then case 2. The important thing to note from this is that even though the GM as arbiter/rules as guidelines approach is important in case 3, the GM as expression of the rules approach is at least equally important in many cases. This is why "GM as arbiter" isn't really a good rebuttal to criticism of rule systems, because the GM is going to have to use those rule systems to actually run the game. The systems need to run well. As per CPS's example, old D&D was an example of Gygax literally making rules up as he went, which is really a third approach entirely. He wasn't using guidelines so much as we was just making entirely new things up on the fly or in reaction to players. This kind of approach isn't really used in most RPGs, because most people don't buy expensive core books in order to make up the rules themselves.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that the rules are also the main route through which players engage in the game, and that in the cases where the GM uses approach B, those rules should be fun for the players to use and play.

some crusading nincompoop's neurotic meltdown(s)

Hi there. I still have the posts you authored saved if anyone cares to read what you're obliquely referring to and judge for themselves which of us was in the right on that one. Let me know if you'd like to go back and read what you wrote before doubling-down on how right you were.

Could you give us some examples of the difference? Preferably by constrasting how the two different styles deal with the same issues or topics?

For the first, someone who knows more can probably write something more in depth, but briefly from what I understand when D&D was first a thing and the only game in town, the assumption was that the GM would know all the rules of the game and the players were actually told not to read them. Instead, they would tell the GM what they wanted to do and the GM would tell them what to roll, if it succeeded, and so on. Basically, the game was a black box the players could only interact with through the GM.

Now, again, that's a fine way to do things, but I'm sure you can see some problems with it (everything at the whim of the GM, for one).

For the second, I'm going to use FATE as an example because I think it's a good example of a game where the players and GM are on equal footing in terms of narrative control and because the rules are free online for you read for yourself. In the FATE system, there's a mechanic called Aspects that exist for the players to use to do cool things and for the GM to introduce setbacks and challenges to the PCs. The rules are transparent as to what's going on and the players and GM both use them to affect the story in roughly the same way. There's not really a need for rules to arbitrate disputes because the system is very transparent in terms of what you can and can't do.

Now, in FATE there's no reason to go around looting everything so encumbrance is not a great example to compare/contrast, but let's roll with it. If Jim want's to pick up a tree trunk and hurl it through the air (and let's say the GM isn't super okay with that), under the arbitration model the GM would look up Jim's strength, the weight of the trunk, and if it weighed too much, sorry Jim you can't do that. Rules say so. In the FATE system, Jim doesn't need the GM's permission - he can do anything so long as he can beat the test's difficulty. Aspects like I'm The Strongest Man Around! or Hey, This Is Balsa Wood! would go in Jim's favor, while the GM could introduce negative aspects to make it harder.

Other examples welcome, this isn't super well written.

No, I think you summed it up pretty clearly.

Question, though. In the example you said that the PC can do anything so long as he can beat the test's difficulty. How does the difficulty get set?

The general guideline is that the GM looks at the Fate Ladder ( http://fate-srd.com/fate-core/taking-action-dice-ladder#the-ladder ) and decides what adjective would best fit the action being taken. This is when a player is passively opposed. Sometimes a player may be actively opposed in what they do, meaning the opposition also rolls and the player has to beat their roll. If you're Joe Schmoe from the block, picking up a tree and swinging it around would probably be Fantastic (6) or Epic (7) difficulty. If you're spider-man, it would probably just be Fair (2) difficulty. For superman, you probably wouldn't even bother rolling.

Keep in mind that I'm using the context of the roll as "the character's inherent ability." You could also use a context of "this is a big ******* tree" and just assign it the same difficulty for any character.

I don't know if that cleared anything up but now I'm really tempted to make a feral world with pterodactyl bombers.