I''m starting to feel like I am, in the words of a wise (or at least funny) man, taking crazy pills.

Please. A pen and paper session can indeed be screwed up by poorly written rules interpreted by pricks. BUT there''s still no comparison with a computer.

If a rule is broken by the computer, you don''t get to argue its decision. You don''t get a vote or the choice to find a new gaming group. You wait for the patch. Full stop. And that costs TIME and MONEY for the poor developer. And every rule that same developer chooses to heap on the computer increases the chance that this will have to happen. Simple combinatorics - the failure modes grow faster-than-exponentially. That''s all the interesting bit posted says.

In opposition to this, the addition of human brains to the interpretation process reduces the possibilities more than exponentially, because the DM and the players have limited capacity to argue, and in the interests of play, they will, if they are reasonable people, try to reach a reasonable conclusion in a reasonable amount of time.

I have yet to read anything that constitutes a counter-argument to this basic fact. Of course you have to find your own balance between interesting gameplay and cost of development, but heaping, as the man says, 20 pages of mechanics will, unless you''re doing purely solo work, have to be justified to someone.

ld

quote: Original post by liquiddark
[...]If a rule is broken by the computer,[...]

The last time I heard of a computer breaking rules, it was in a scifi movie.
Computers do what you program them to do except when the computer is malfunctioning (ie overheating, broken, etc). If you make a program that causes the computer to malfunction, then yeah you better patch it pretty damn fast or you''ll get sued for a LOT of money.

So you''ve never fallen out of the world in a FPS? Congratulations, you are a lucky person.

ld

There are two ways p&p RPGs have complexity limits on their calculations. One is in the inherent complexity of the mathematics involved, and should generally limit cRPGs as well. The other lies in adding individually simple calculations across the board, and can be tolerated in moderation in cRPGs.

In both cases, it''s possible to go overboard with detailed rules and mechanics; in p&p the natural way to go to excess is by adding special cases to cover every concievable situation, which would be equally disastrous in cRPGs. In cRPGs, I firmly believe it''s possible to simulate more deeply and reduce conceptual complexity at the cost of sheer volume of calculation - the bolt-on critical hit rules in the d20 system can be superceded by having a hit-location system where the actual damage dealt varies more continuously based on the hit-location (more of an FPS-style RPG)

As with all things, you have to accept a trade-off somewhere, but at the moment, my impression of the cRPG market is that large areas of design space are being left unexplored in favour of ever more faithful and detailed implementations of systems closely descended from D&D...

And, at least in the case of reputable p&p RPG developers, there is still a cost for patching "broken" situations, and testing introduced mechanics. If an ambiguity or abusive loophole is discovered, while many players will just shrug and apply an ad hoc ruling, there will still be some who appeal back to the developers and expect an official ruling.