l'OTU est mort, vie les OTUs.

[robject]

The more rule sets I work from, the more I realize how sensitive any setting is to rules.

Rulesets carry assumptions within them; of course we all know this. But it strikes me today very strongly. Rules are written from ideas, from concepts. When those concepts differ, the expression of setting changes, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.

Perhaps the ultimate expression of this is "House Rules". How often are our house rules actually a tweak of the OTU? One of the oldest, if not The Oldest, house rule is cooked up from within GDW itself - the wounding rule during character generation, to replace character death. Now the bodies don't stack up like they used to. Less frustration to get a playable character. The two go together. Now our OTU is slightly more sterile. Not that I'm complaining; I'm just observing. Perhaps the original intent may have been to show every player how dangerous space is. That has been lost, unless you play Iron Man Mongoose or LBB1.

Thus we have another principle: every rule writer has a unique view, different in certain ways from each other. When we disagree, we may try to use the Rules As Written -- RAW -- to defend our position, but in the end the author's intent may either be unclear or in dispute as well. Moreover, appeals to authority do not work simply because by creating our fictional gaming universe, each of us is THE authority.

At the end of the day, all we can do is agree to play by another's rules, and even to contribute organically to it, using its systems to produce useful stuff for gaming. Perhaps in working with another's rules, we may help improve it.

 

[Timerover51]

Thus we have another principle: every rule writer has a unique view, different in certain ways from each other. When we disagree, we may try to use the Rules As Written -- RAW -- to defend our position, but in the end the author's intent may either be unclear or in dispute as well. Moreover, appeals to authority do not work simply because by creating our fictional gaming universe, each of us is THE authority.

At the end of the day, all we can do is agree to play by another's rules, and even to contribute organically to it, using its systems to produce useful stuff for gaming. Perhaps in working with another's rules, we may help improve it.

It depends on the rule as to whether appeals to authority are valid or not. The amount of TNT or TNT-equivalent in explosives to breach a specified wall thickness of reinforced concrete is well-established, and can be checked against the US Army Field Manual 5-25, Explosives and Demolitions. I have basically complete data on the effective casualty radius on every US World War 2 ammunition, both artillery, bombs, and rockets. I have a detailed study done by the US Navy Bureau of Ships as to what it took in terms of US airborne ordnance to sink the various types of ships used in World War 2 and beyond. The likelihood of a human surviving a penetrating head or chest wound from a British .577/.450 Martini-Henry bullet should not be a matter of interpretation. The ability of an elephant to survive the effect of a one-half pound explosive shell bursting in its lungs is not a subject open to debate. The amount of food and water required by a given number of men for a specified period of time can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy, and if you have access to Vauban, you can include tobacco consumption in the calculation.

Whether or not a planet allows player-characters to wander around in full Battle Armor with fusion guns is subject to debate, along with the entire issue of man-portable energy weapons. The mechanics and what is required for an interstellar drive is something open to debate, as is the nature of in-system maneuver drives. How lethal or innocuous you make the combat system is wide open, however, using a large amount of data on combat casualties as a basis to work from does give an authoritative base to what is decided.

 

[mike wightman]

The more rule sets I work from, the more I realize how sensitive any setting is to rules.

Small rule changes can have massive implications to the implied setting, especially when the setting itself is written to show how the rules can be made to work.

Rulesets carry assumptions within them; of course we all know this. But it strikes me today very strongly. Rules are written from ideas, from concepts. When those concepts differ, the expression of setting changes, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.

They are also sometimes the result of misconceptions about the original rules that are being re-interpreted. They also sometimes include mistakes that become accepted as rules/setting changes.

Perhaps the ultimate expression of this is "House Rules". How often are our house rules actually a tweak of the OTU? One of the oldest, if not The Oldest, house rule is cooked up from within GDW itself - the wounding rule during character generation, to replace character death. Now the bodies don't stack up like they used to. Less frustration to get a playable character. The two go together. Now our OTU is slightly more sterile. Not that I'm complaining; I'm just observing. Perhaps the original intent may have been to show every player how dangerous space is. That has been lost, unless you play Iron Man Mongoose or LBB1.

I would love to see the original GDW house rules for their ship construction, and the working notes from which HG1 and Hg2 were produced.

Thus we have another principle: every rule writer has a unique view, different in certain ways from each other. When we disagree, we may try to use the Rules As Written -- RAW -- to defend our position, but in the end the author's intent may either be unclear or in dispute as well. Moreover, appeals to authority do not work simply because by creating our fictional gaming universe, each of us is THE authority.

But which RAW do you take as final authority?

At the end of the day, all we can do is agree to play by another's rules, and even to contribute organically to it, using its systems to produce useful stuff for gaming. Perhaps in working with another's rules, we may help improve it.

There are certain rules that I just can not bring myself to use because they are so flawed - why waste time trying to fix something that should not be broken in the first place. Especially when there are earlier, better rules that cover the same situations but actually work?

 

[rancke]

Rulesets carry assumptions within them; of course we all know this. But it strikes me today very strongly. Rules are written from ideas, from concepts. When those concepts differ, the expression of setting changes, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.

It's more complicated than that. Some rules do not reflect the setting reality accurately or even closely. Take the gun that does 3D damage. Interpreted literally, it means that there are people who can never be killed by one shot of that gun. Yet if I put a (formerly high-attribute) corpse slain by a single bullet into one of my adventures and one of my players started testing for subtle Vilani poisons on the grounds that it was impossible to kill someone like that with a single bullet, I would mock him mercilessly.

Often this sort of thing are for game purposes. If I changed the rules for generating PC attributes to 'roll three dice and take the two highest', it wouldn't change a darn thing about the setting -- just how qualified PCs were to deal with it. The draft in character generation is not necessarily a reflection of the existence of an Imperial Draft Office that assigns one sixth of the entire population to the Imperial Other Service; it is much more likely to be a game artifact. The freight and passenger prices do not reflect an actual legal price fixing; it's merely a game artifact to ease the burden of running a free trader campaign. The trade system... but let's not get me started on the trade system.

In fact, since game rules are necessarily simplifications of reality, one could argue that NO rule reflects any part of the seting reality accurately unless you're playing a war- or board-game. Still, many rules are rooted in reality, so perhaps it is best to ignore this aspect.

EDIT: By the way, did you notice that I didn't bring up rules with different setting ramifications that contradict each other? I think I really deserve a bit of kudos for that.


Hans

 

[robject]

Yes, you did good, Hans. Kudos!

Mike: I'll see what I can do.