Often when I read complicated RPG rules I think to myself, "There is no way that this is actually playable at the gaming table. This is aspirational rules design. People will just forget to use most of this, because there's nothing that triggers an RPG rule beyond what people remember."

#ttrpg

@mrundkvist This is me staring at you across the table in Chivalry & Sorcery...

A computer can't avoid executing programme code. But an RPG group has endless opportunity to either forget or wilfully ignore code that's too complicated or doesn't work well.

@mrundkvist I wonder if a computer game will ever be able to say "but that's stupid, let's say this happens instead". Or more importantly "that's not possible, but it's really cool, so yeah, you do it."

@si_fuller
Or "I vaguely remember that there's detailed rules for getting shot at while partly covered, but never mind, the villain misses you."

@ZDL
Am I the GM? If you're lucky you will get to roll dice once in that C&S sesh.

Often when I read complicated RPG rules I think to myself, "There is no way that this is actually playable at the gaming table. This is aspirational rules design. People will just forget to use most of this, because there's nothing that triggers an RPG rule beyond what people remember."

#ttrpg

@mrundkvist The largest amount of work in C&S has nothing to do with dice. Playing a C&S mage involves huge amounts of inter-session paperwork for enchanting materials, making magick (sic) items and learning spells.

@ZDL
It's a fabled system! But I am very, very good at ignoring the system, often through actual ignorance.

@mrundkvist I've certainly come to the point that mechanics have to be justified. I've got a simple system that I consider to be rules-minimal. So, if you're going to add a rule, it better model and enable something awesome, that isn't possible with less.

@crabsoft
Unworkable rules are often the result of simulationist over-ambition. But the combat system in Swords of the Serpentine manages to be both unworkable AND non-simulationist.

It's a 2008 rules-lite system that by 2022 had mutated into a hideous bush of exceptions and odd links to the game's skill system, all because the designer wanted to insert hard-coded narrative opportunities into combat. Also unintended exploits...

#ttrpg

@mrundkvist "Simulation" is code for "lazy". Game design is all about making abstractions both satisfying and fun. Calling it simulation is just refusing to do the work.

Often when I read complicated RPG rules I think to myself, "There is no way that this is actually playable at the gaming table. This is aspirational rules design. People will just forget to use most of this, because there's nothing that triggers an RPG rule beyond what people remember."

#ttrpg

@mrundkvist

Apropos of nothing, RPGNet currently has a thread on "Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth".

How we figured out how to play Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth | Tabletop Roleplaying Open

Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth promises a game where you can create a world, zoom in and out of aspects of it and speed up and slow down time as you play...

RPGnet Forums (forum.rpg.net)

@juergen_hubert

"Verbose, obtuse, badly explained, badly organised, repetitive, over-complex, pretentious, but containing one phenomenally good idea. Aria should have been a milestone in the history of roleplaying games. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a large and expensive doorstop instead. Aria is quite literally unplayable."

Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

@juergen_hubert

"Verbose, obtuse, badly explained, badly organised, repetitive, over-complex, pretentious, but containing one phenomenally good idea. Aria should have been a milestone in the history of roleplaying games. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a large and expensive doorstop instead. Aria is quite literally unplayable."

Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

@mrundkvist

I still have it on my bookshelf, because I am a sucker for worldbuilding tools. But I have neither run nor played it.

@juergen_hubert @mrundkvist

I have read it once. It was excellent for generating interesting dreams.

@mrundkvist

I still have it on my bookshelf, because I am a sucker for worldbuilding tools. But I have neither run nor played it.

@juergen_hubert
IMHO, worldbuilding tools belong on computers. But I am very interested in scenario generating tools. This is of course in line with my general unwillingness to invest in a game world beyond the needs of a given scenario.