Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6093532" data-attributes="member: 27160">OK, my own reasons for not preferring this style are as follows:- In my experience (starting with OD&D from ~1975 and playing regularly up to ~1980), the nice "loosey goosey" feel lasts until the first time each "non-rule" is tested. After that, one of two things happens: either (a) whatever the DM decided becomes a new rule that the players will either evade or leverage, or (b) it doesn't become a rule, there is just as much uncertainty about the outcome next time as there was the first time. In this second case, persuing strategies or making plans becomes a waste of time; you have no basis on which to plan.- My conclusion is that, in general, and excepting real corner cases, the "rule" that gets generated the first time a situation comes up would be better if it was covered in the rules from day 1. I therefore prefer games with clear and comprehensive rules.- Note, however, that these rules do not need to be predicated on modelling the game world physics. They might be - but they might equally well define whose dictat is effective over what outcome at any specific time. There are a huge number of permutations by which this may be done in a way that will generate an interesting game - which is one reason there are many, many sets of RPG rules!For me, though, the "there are no rules for this - make it up as you go along" method is just the rules writer telling me to make my own game in an ad hoc manner. I don't have time enough in life for that, any more, personally.</blockquote>

Verification