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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1948877" data-attributes="member: 23012">I did?  :\ By whose definition?  I think we are talking past each other here.A system that is more general can be just as complete as a system that is more nuanced/complex -- if by 'complete' we mean a system that can cover all (or at least most) situations that arise during game play.  That is, a complete system is one that does not require GMs to come up with ad hoc rules to cover situations that arise during play.    Now a more general 'rules lite' system will not allow for as much differentiation between different characters (and monsters, etc.) as a complex system can.   Or at least not as much 'rules enforced' differentiation.  Does that mean it is less complete?  Not according to the definition of 'complete' that I have been using.If it is important to you to have rules that disinguish between agile jugglers and agile nonjugglers, then a rules lite system is probably not going to be your cup of tea -- pure and simple.   But that doesn't mean that the rules lite system is not capable of covering all situations that are likely to arise during gameplay.I was responding to the charge that rules lite game systems require 'ad hoc' decisions by GMs.  This charge is mistaken.But of course a very complex system like HERO or GURPS will allow for a much greater degree of customization than any rules lite game.  'Rules heavy' games and 'Rules lite' games have different virtues and vices.  Which is better depends on what you want out of your gaming sessions.  But to claim that the latter kinds of games necessarily require 'ad hoc' decisions is simply not correct.</blockquote>

Verification