Re: of rules and munchkins

[Benjamin Austin <jedi@ecn.purdue.edu>]

[Some snips to reduce size of post]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Steven E. Ames wrote:

> There are basically only a few cases when we feel the need to make
> changes to the rules.
> 
> 1. To fix an error or omission or add clarification. This has
> historically been the most common case as the rules are really still
> evolving. Changes/clarifications that fix holes and make understanding
> easier get integrated into the manual very quickly. Dan has always been
> responsive to these (sometimes his choice of fix wouldn't be mine, but
> he has always implemented "some" fix).
>

But is there a list of common rulings that have not been included in the
book?  I know at some point recently there was a discussion about the
newer GMs, and others for that matter, being able to look at older rulings
made by other GMs but I don't remember if anything came out of it (damn
fickle memory).  I'm not suggesting by any means that we sit down and go
over the book and make common place rulings for vague passages but I do
understand the frustration that players have.

 
> 2. Removing a restriction or non-logical rule. This type of change need
> to get discussed thoroughly to make sure that its removal doesn't open
> up gaps. AQ should be open ended. You should be able to start with a
> base character but there really should be no limits on where you can end
> up. Some restrictions actually exist to simplify game play. This has to
> be taken into account.
> 

There's also the options of researching spells and developing new skills
which also makes the game open-ended.

> 3. Realism. The game is easier to relate to if it isn't glaringly
> 
> 4. Simplification. Making the rules simpler to use without removing any

3 and 4 are often a trade off.  Games that go over-board in realism are
_usually_ incredible complex and slow to play.  Balacing the two is a
difficult process.

> 
> 2. Gameflow takes precedence over all else... including realism. Any
> mechanic that slows (or halts) a game is bad. Any mechanism which causes
> people to forget they are role-playing and go "that's dumb" is bad.
> 

I would say that fairness (or, probably, consistency would be a better way
of pharsing it) is on the same level as gameflow.  Few things piss players
off more than not being able to do something one week and then watching
five people do it the next.


BJ