I Do Not Care About +1s (A description of why accounting as gameplay is not only false fun, but is immoral, corruptive to the youth and to the aged)
I Do Not Care About +1s (A description of why accounting as gameplay is not only false fun, but is immoral, corruptive to the youth and to the aged, and is deserving only of unanimous, unyielding, and indelible condemnation by all decent people. Furthermore, a digression on the benefits (which are manifold) of running games with coarser resolution to facilitate the use of more units)
Dawg, a +1 on a d20 is a 5% bonus. I do not care about accumulating little +1s here and there to offset the little -1s you have accumulated there and here. This is pencil pushing. This is the substitution of interesting content with the lowest, boringest default when you're out of ideas: I disdain and disregard items that are nothing more than +1 swords, abilities that are nothing more than +1 to this stat or that stat, and +1s that are coveted and tallies up when your attempting some activity.
Pages of guns, where they differ only slightly in their ranges, or their damages, or their chances of hitting - this is not real content but pablum. Certainly it is digestible and gives an excuse for the granularity of game mechanics, but these guns really are not different.
A fighter that has a 5% improved chance of hitting is a distinction without a difference worth considering.
I look to and admire Best Case Scenario (and its extremely laudable follower, The Darkest Outcome), where the cruft has been amputated bloodily with a keen cleaver: Clever Deus percieved well, first, that with the coarser resolution of a d6, an individuals merits and demerits matter more.
Second, that when individuals are coarser more of them can be used at once. Why content ourselves with one finger to manipulate the world when you can control a hand, when you can have the members of a team banter amongst one another to amuse your fellow players and elicit responses? We are all familiar enough with controlling one body, and can easily describe its solitary operation, but describing and enacting cooperation with other plauyers, even when they are on the same wavelength as you, requires greater description and buy-in especially when danger is present and PCs are at risk. "My squad forms a human pyramid with Sierra at the apex, surpassing the wall: Romeo covers the west and Juliett the east" takes six second and two breaths to enact. You do not politic with others, none worry that the elision and assumption of party positioning sometimes necessary to keep the flow of play fast will see consequence fall on an unconsenting head: So if Sierra's shako clears the wall to find sawblades and shredding, their squad's singular player made it so and bears all blame and consequence.
Third, simplicity: I have designed overingenious systems. Minutes have been spent in explanation, and more minutes in correction. This is precious time at the table expended to merely tread water. I assure you that the spare chassis of procedure, such as you would see in a boardgame, is sufficient vehicle for splended adventures. Pay the cost in glazed eyes, in brainpower spent looking at rules and not inhabiting the world, on where it really has purpose.