Re: of rules and munchkins

[Foo <fooboy@laf.cioe.com>]

I VOLUNTEER SEAN TO WRITE UP A RULINGS MANUAL.

er, uh, nevermind. ;)

 -*********************************-
-  Joel Gunderson                   -         
-  fooboy@laf.cioe.com              -
-  The only completely consistent   -
-  people are the dead.             -
-              -- Aldous Huxley     -
 -*********************************-

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Sean L. McLane wrote:

> > From steve@virtual-voodoo.com  Tue Feb 29 14:35:46 2000
> > Subject: Re: of rules and munchkins
> >
> > > But is there a list of common rulings that have not been included in
> > the
> > > book? 
> >
> > Agreed totally. This is why the constitution is tiny, but the actual law
> > is HUGE. I think we _should_ produce a second document that includes
> > common rulings and the justification for those rulings. As long as the
> > new document used the same numbering scheme as the actual manual then
> > having a "GM's Guide" would be valuable and a quick reference. We've got
> > some talented people who could build an on-line version pretty easy
> > (people can print at their own leisure on their own dollar :).
> >
> > Any thoughts on this? Any volunteers? I think we can all agree that the
> > people putting a lot of effort into this should get an eep reward just
> > like writing up adventures.
> >
> 
> Well, before this project gets underway, we would have to answer the question
> of 'which book?'. Few people have the same edition of the book with the same
> paging sequence. My own copy is quite out of date (it still has Rogues, instead
> of Augers), and I know there are at least a half dozen other editions out 
> there.
> 
> I've gotten the new magic item books up to date, except for the material which
> is in the computer, which I cannot add, as I don't have that data. So I would
> volunteer for compiling a list of rulings and putting it together in a simple
> document for GM and player distribution.
> 
> > > There's also the options of researching spells and developing new
> > skills
> > > which also makes the game open-ended.
> >
> > Quite right.
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Couldn't agree more. Documented precedence (aka "GM's Guide") would be
> > extremely valuable in promoting consistent rulings.
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> 
> I would say that consistency should have a high priority. It gets frustrating
> that there are different GMs who rule different ways about things. This leads
> to situations like there being a couple of GMs to whom everyone goes for 
> adjudication of Mutations, due to favorable rulings.
> 
> -Sean
>