Recent content by pemerton

If you want to play a game in which there are no Goliath PCs, or no Dwarven Wizards, then why not jus tplay it? I'm not sure why you need WotC to give you permission, or direction. Likewise with the rest rules. I mean (i) these have already been published and (ii) you seem to have already set...

I'm not that hard to enlighten! But I am wondering what RPGs you have in mind. My inference is that you're talking about games that are largely GM story-telling. Again, I'm wondering what your evidence base is - that is, what games are you thinking of?

Luckily no one has ever advanced mocking criticism of the two RPGs I've spent more consecutive years playing than any others - Rolemaster, and 4e D&D. So my gaming ego is unaffronted. <reviews nearly every post ever about RM and 4e> Wait, I think I need to edit this post . . .

I don't think anyone would regard HERO or Rolemaster as light or simple systems. But both leave scene-framing, transition from scene-to-scene, and outcomes beyond immediate kinetic consequences, or immediate interpersonal consequences, in the hands of the GM. So both are extremely vulnerable to...

What are these "light and simple systems" that encourage "playing the GM"? Or that are as close to just pass/fail as possible? The light and simple system I have the most experience with is Prince Valiant. Neither of those propositions is true of it. Whether a system admits of results other...

You seem to be positing bad GMing.

I get what you're saying, but I have a feeling that at least some aspects of genre and some aspects of playstyle overlap. I feel an ammo-tracking combat system, for instance, doesn't fit well with space opera genre, but suggests something more Tom Clancy-esque. I'm happy to concede it's...

As best I can recall, I don't think I've ever run a "generic"/"universal" RPG. But if I did, it would probably be HeroQuest Revised. Another possibility would be Story Bones (Maelstrom Storytelling without the setting).

I'm not really strong on the concept of "roguelike" progression; but here are the Advancement rules from Knave: Whenever a PC accumulates 1000 XP, they gain a level. As a guideline, PCs receive 50 XP for low-risk accomplish-ments, 100 XP for moderate-risk accomplishments, and 200 XP for...

I assume it's because 4e has basically two settings for skills: skilled or unskilled. There are further adjustments: class abilities, race abilities, feats, etc; but untrained (no adjustment beyond stat) or trained (stat +5) is the basic logic of the 4e skill system.

Well in that case, this claim is false: Because there are RPGs in which the actual maths of discrete skills is noticeable and is important to play.

I didn't realise that you were talking only about 5e D&D. Your post (and the thread more generally) didn't make that clear.

Combat can be resolved via "typical narration-based gameplay" the same as any other activity. And then it will be as real-time as any other activity.

I think that in systems where roll is dice pool based (Burning Wheel and its cousins, BitD and its cousins, Prince Valiant, etc) people would notice. Rolling 1D and trying to get 3 successes is pretty different from rolling 6D and trying to get 3 successes.

They can also be seen as building on thief abilities, secret door detection, rangers' tracking ability, etc.