I touched upon this in a G+ D&D 5e thread earlier today, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this: "Less is More" and "More is Better", is in my mind at least, The Great Divide amongst games and gamers alike.
See, under Less is More, the GM is more of an Arbiter of the Rules. You have a framework of rules that cover (hopefully) all of the major points. The less common rules issues may or may not be covered. That is where The Arbiter of the Rules comes in. The GM makes a common sense ruling and the game moves on.
Obviously under the "Less is More" style of gaming, each group will evolve it's own set of houserules, so even groups playing the same game aren't playing exactly the same game (much like the early years of D&D and AD&D).
Under the More is Better approach to game building, the desire is to have an established rule for just about any event that may come up. I like to think of D&D 3x and even more so 4e as this type of game. In this case the GM is the Enforcer of the Rules. He's not there to make decisions or interpret, he's there to make sure everyone at the table is following the game rules.
More is Better is certainly geared towards organized play, as every group will be running with the same set of relatively unadulterated rules. This allows players to move a character from game to game and expect the experience to be fairly similar across tables.
I've used D&D editions for examples because they are an easy way to point out the differences, but it applies to all RPGs to some extent.
I suspect D&D 5e is trying to straddle the line between the two. It's a dangerous line to walk, as the two sides are not natural companions.
So, where do you lean? Do you lean differently as a player than you do as a GM?
Catch is a Bug - Let's talk about catch. Tynan Sylvester, in his book *Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences*, describes the game of catch as an opportunity...
1 hour ago