Search results

I gave numerous examples in the post of mine you originally quoted, of ways in which I believe modern mechanics can drive play and directly contrasted that with other methods. I'm really not sure what I can add or where you feel I've failed to be clear in the drawing the distinction. The words...

Are you arguing that both types of system work essentially the same way, or just arguing about the choice of wording? If the latter, feel free to pitch a better phrase. I'm not attached to any particular verbiage; I took the "drive play" phrasing from people who want modern mechanics explaining...

Any chance you have a comprehensive blog or anything else detailing all that has occurred, specifically from a behind-the-scenes, GM perspective? I'm especially interested in any thoughts on part five, which looks very weak to me, to the point I suspect I would need to basically replace it with...

I prefer the opposite -- multiple classes for humans, for dwarves, for gnomes, for elves, fpr cockroach people or whatever races are allowed. The thing that makes it work for me is that an elven enchanter isn't just a human wizard with some elvish racial traits, it's a genuinely elven...

I missed this question earlier. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but, yes, I do keep buying new books and adding new systems as I need to. Pretty much every game I pick up I do so in order to meet a very specific need or interest. On the other hand, I'm not a completionist, and I won't...

Interesting that you say this. I came to like race as class (especially ACKS style, with multiple classes for each race) when I embraced the idea that (in a race-as-class type system) your class is not merely what you do, it's what you are.

I can only speak for myself, but the way I approach, assess and use RPGs is completely and utterly different to the way I approach and assess computer games. I use them in entirely different ways, to achieve entirely different ends. I don't think I'm especially unusual in this, and when things...

I'm not suggesting everyone loves RM. It sounds like you're talking about learning the entire game alone, in order to run it and teach it yourself. My point is that, as a GM who knows and loves the system, I've never had a problem introducing new players. I'm saying no more or less than that.

I've already formed and given my answer: It's a game that wants the mechanics to actively drive play. If you've introduced (and rely on) mechanics that do that, then I'd say you've turned GURPS into a modern game. If you didn't do that, then you haven't.

It's all just anecdotes, but I've never had any issues introducing players to RM. I haven't had any player have difficulty with it (no issues understanding the game or enjoying it).

There are any number of systems I would do this with, depending on the exact nature of the game I want to run. It could be any of the following: Rolemaster Mythras ACKS Worlds Without Number WFRP 4e with The Enemy Within Campaign Godbound Ars Magica Edit: On read the thread, I noticed that I...

Speaking generally, the longer this thread goes on, the more I feel that the most distinctive defining feature of modern RPG design philosophy is the idea that the mechanics should drive play (as opposed to supporting or enabling play, such as through simulating a world).

The question wasn't directed at me, and I'm not all that well versed in Tomb Raider so I don't have a specific answer to this question ready. However, it is entirely possible that I might choose a game that wasn't designed specifically to offer a Tomb Raider experience, because there is no...

You may be right; I was using theme in this instance essentially as a catch-all for the intended mood and style of play, including what you list as ingredients, which I wouldn't tend to separate out as independent of that. My perspective is probably also skewed by the fact that, in general, I'm...

To add to this, when I used GURPS to run X-Com, the reason I chose GURPS was because, after evaluating a range of systems it was GURPS that provided me with the best set of tools to realise my specific vision. When I ran a high powered fantasy game where players had no restrictions on character...

Fair point. I think this means the "and tightly focused mechanics that drive play" (or something along those lines) is indeed the more important part of the definition I suggested.

Throughout this conversation, I've been saying that it sounds like you think intent only counts as intent if it's narrowly focused on a single thing. Your responses have felt, to me, as if you were saying that you are simply using intent in it's normal, common form. You even went so far as to...

GURPS has a clear focus -- providing the tools to simulate a variety of (usually reasonably grounded) worlds and settings with a consistent set of mechanics. The vast majority of games have a pretty obvious focus. If you aren't going to count them, then the "narrow' qualifier seems essential to...

If you don't want to use the word to cover the things it usually covers, then I'd suggest using a different word, or adding some qualifiers. Why say, "A distinguishing feature of modern design philosophy is to design with intent*" and confuse people, when you could say, "A distinguishing...

That was my position, but I'm not sure it was widely held -- I recall getting quite a bit of pushback (some of my earliest posts here are most likely on this very topic).