Cyberzombie wrote:FrankTrollman wrote:
Which gets us back to an earlier thing Zak was vocally, though ineffectually denying: the Rulings not Rules argument is in essence just a restatement of Oberoni. The rulings are only necessary, only useful because of bad rules. They don't excuse the bad rules from being bad.
No, not quite. Oberoni is a defense of bad rules. The rules-lite crowd believes in fewer rules. They don't want a bad rule, in fact they don't want a rule
at all.
The major complaint that the majority on the Den have against the 'rulings not rules' community is an insistence that good rules are not necessary or desirable, because if the rules are bad, the DM will just change them anyway.
It should be obvious if the rules are good, it will not be required for a DM to change them. Therefore, good rules are better than bad rules. In the case of bad rules, a good DM has no choice but to change them. If the rule is good, the DM can change it if he likes (hopefully for an equally good rule that better suits the tastes of his particular group) - but is not required to.
If a bad rule puts a burden on all groups, a good rule only burdens groups that desire to 'tinker'. Thus, a good rule is better in all situations than a bad rule. The fact that DMs can alter bad rules is no defense for their existence.
The suggestion that 'fertility rates of half-eleven females' is a desirable rule is reductio ad absurdum. A good rule facilitates the playing of the game. Unless your game has a major focus on paternity and inheritance, determining whether a particular tryst results in conception, or whether said conception results in a healthy delivery is likely outside of the scope of the game. There are no published games that require conception rules to 'function' within the expected design parameters.
The 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' (I think - I'm not familiar with it) offers a 'bolt-on' system for these types of rules if a group desires them. But lacking these rules is not an issue for most gamers. Not having rules for situations that aren't part of the expected game play is a Strawman. In most fantasy games, having rules for fighting in a zero-g vacuum is not necessary. Failure to include them is not necessarily a failure in game design.
If zero-g vacuum combat is a regular and expected part of the game, the failure to include rules to cover it
is a failure. Not having a rule for a necessary aspect of the game
is the same as having a bad rule. If you have a good rule, you can use it. If you have a bad rule, you have to make something up. If you have no rule, you have to make something up. The only advantage of 'no rule' is that it takes up less space in the book than a 'bad rule'.
Not having a rule may be marginally better than a bad rule, but that's subject to a whole bunch of caveats and preferences (because a bad rule could be a good starting point for building a better rule for some groups).
The 'rulings not rules' crowd haven't been arguing for replacing only bad rules for the last several pages (which is actually a respectable position - though there may be advantages to identifying the bad rules and replacing them PRIOR to play) - they have been arguing for replacing rules
they don't even know. This means that there is at least a good possibility that
some groups that favor the play style replace a
good rule with a
bad rule. While the bad rule might be marginally quicker than looking up the 'official' rule, any benefit it might have is
completely undermined by a postion like Zak S has maintained where the bad rule will be used in all future situations (for the sake of consistency).
In the event that a bad rule is NOT maintained (and precedent is abandoned) you have the potential downside of inconsistent rules and bad feelings among players because sometimes they were on the wrong side of a 'too favorable' or 'too unfavorable' ruling. If rulings are too variable, the GM may appear capricious, and it is easy to blame the GM for 'bad things' that happen to a character. Consistent rules help protect the GM's position as a 'neutral arbiter'. Abandoning the published rules
especially if the players are familiar with them carries with it some risks, even for a mature group of friends, that should not make it the 'default option' without reason and/or agreement from the players. Defaulting every disagreement to 'shut up or leave the group' is not the hallmark of mature groups of friends. If a player doesn't think a ruling is reasonable, some method of reconciling the different opinions at the table is crucial. Reference to the rules (if they address the issue) is a
fair and impartial starting point.
