As part of a thread over on RPG.net I posted up a link to the resolution system from Chanter (Link here, and the dice mechanics here) and received the following comment "Rules-lawyers could give that game some trouble." from another poster. I asked for clarification from them, but for whatever reason they didn't reply.

It may be that they've simply misunderstood the system, or it may be that I'm missing something but I don't see where the problem is. Can anyone here see were the system has potential problems in this area?

"Rules-lawyers could give that game some trouble.", strikes me as somebody afraid of people using the rules as written 'cos their prefered (or default by habit)  style of play clashes with that produced by your game.

If the rules as written produce the style of play you want, it's not an issue. Not for you anyway.

-Matt

Hiya Jack,

I assume that "Rules-lawers could give you some trouble." means that the poster thought there was some form of exploitable loop-hole in the system.

I read through your chapter on rolling dice and skimmed over the rest, searching for exploitable bits.  I coulnd't find anything obvious.  Everything seems pretty straight forward and streamlined, system wise.  In fact, as I read your text, I realize that most every loose situation is tightened up by having the GM deal with it.  So that kinda prevents the kind of loophole-shooting player that "Rules Lawer" often implies.

But then, a rules lawer is really just the guy that makes the Rule0-GM's life tough.  I don't see anything like Rule0 in your game, so I don't think that the issue even applies to Chanter.

-Eric

Hi Jack,

I haven't read the spawning thread or Chanter rules in detail, but at a guess I'd think the post was talking about the apparent implicit 'looseness' in the Chanter rules. In the section you link to, there are two combat examples. The first, the GM narrates a solution which the player disagrees with. Player wins, text cites 'reasonable resolution'. Second example, player rolls badly enough to get themselves in trouble, GM narrates player death, player decides he'd rather something else happen. GM agrees. Play goes in favour of the player. Reading with an 'Dork Tower' eye, this could read as 'player gets what they want, GM makes up something to'.

Now none of that is a problem for the right group, but I'm guessing if you read this from a 'I've only played D20 and I'd like to try it' viewpoint, then you might be worried about a rules-focussed player giving the GM headaches at every turn. Every even-slightly possible solution they can come up with morphs in 'reasonable' and the GM is quickly pulling hair :) I'm envisaging the Dork Tower group playing this .. Of course for a group or DM used to a more narrative style, I don't think this would be an issue.

In this context I think the comment is more about the looseness of the conflict resolution rules rather than an implicit statistical weakness or loophole in the dice rules.

Mind you, I could be way off the mark :)

Ta

Dave

Eric and Matt,

That was pretty much what I thought after reading the comment, but I was concerned that they might have spotted something I'd simply missed. I think Dave's probably analysed the comment correctly.

Dave,

That sounds like a plausible reading, yes (although guessing what someone else meant by a vague comment is an exercise in futility). The rules as designed do provide clear controls on both the problems you identify, but I have perhaps failed to make them clear when written down.

After a win case; the player can ask for a different resolution, but the authority lies with the GM. It might be better written with a player proposes system. But the conflict scope and GM authority should provide sufficent tightness.

After a lose case, the player may attempt another action to produce a different result. They can always do this, but the action must be of a different type and any prior loses remain. I imagine the problem here is in defining what 'different' means? That is, perhaps, a legitimate complaint - maybe I'd better come up with more mechanically precise guidelines.

Cheers,

Jack.

Jack wrote:
After a lose case, the player may attempt another action to produce a different result. They can always do this, but the action must be of a different type and any prior loses remain. I imagine the problem here is in defining what 'different' means? That is, perhaps, a legitimate complaint - maybe I'd better come up with more mechanically precise guidelines.

Justin wrote: I also think that defining 'reasonable' is another problem - it leaves it completely in the hands of the GM, which means that a rules lawyer could find a GM result as arbitrary. A more definite way of resolving what is reasonable would be necessary - but I think the essence of your system is simplicity and defining 'reasonable' may damage that.

I have to say, I like the system and the setting a lot. A clean and managable system and an interesting world thoughtfully evoked.

And another point is that, in my experience at least, rules lawyers do not get involved in rules-lite games. They like the big heavy crunchy stuff with thousands of loopholes. In fact, creating a definition of 'reasonable' could even lead to more rules-lawyer antics. As someone else said, a way of narrative arbitration instead of system resolution would probably be in order. Mechanically precise guidelines can get real complicated real fast.