On elegance, versus mere abstraction...

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:35:50 +0100 (BST)


Allan Wallace, quoting me:
> > "why not have a simpler rule, which doesn't _need_ to be presented
> >as a table?"

> Simpler is not always
> better, especially with roleplaying systems. The roleplaying system must have
> enough to it to promote the desired atmosphere. Otherwise, it's only purpose
> is to provide the feel of fairness and some control over your destiny.

> I strongly suspect that what you want is a game system that mostly stays
> out of your way while you weave a story of soliloquies and fantasies.

Not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that that's the sort of system that HW _is_, for better or for worse. My complaint, and what I was attempting to fix by my non-table alternative isn't this aspect, one way or the other, but rather just how clunky the mechanic is, to implement a given degree of Heroic Abstraction. Spefically, all the table in HW does, ultimately, is to play the same role as the "non-table" in Pendragon, or Runequest, and the like, that tells you "what happens if you crit, and I fail?", and other permutations thereof. (To wit, resolving relative degrees of success given each absolute degree of success.)

> To reduce to the absurd, I was in a game at DunDraCon
> 1 or 2, where the entire rules system seemed to be "State your intention, if
> your d20 roll beat the GM's, it worked."

So for example, a more elegant mechanic to achieve _this_ effect would be "toss a coin". ;-)

Slainte,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail