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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5832742" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think you're not really getting what BryonD's getting at. For one thing, he's not directly challenging that a balanced system could be a solid system, rather that there's no way it can be balanced in all circumstances. A DM will be forced to compare apples and oranges at some point. For the gaming experience to be at its best, in those circumstances, you still do better with a good DM than you will with a bad one.I think he does have a point about overdesigned rule systems that try to come up with an answer for everything. Some really good GMs may feel that the system constrains them under cumbersome rules. This is similar to why all simulation-based elements of games are all significantly abstracted in the first place. Too much attempt to model reality = cumbersome rules and details. By a similar token, I think too much attempt by the game to be comprehensive = constraining. While there has always been rules lawyering, I do suspect that complaints about player entitlement and rules lawyering have increased with the increasing comprehensiveness of rule systems. I feel that does constrain a GM's ability to make rulings at the table rather than administer rules and that does make for poorer GMing.This isn't about deficient systems like Palladium necessarily making better GMs through some kind of trial by fire (although, you have to figure that a GM who makes that game really sing has some awesome GMing chops). I think it's more reasonably solid system that allows and acknowledges need for GM rulings + good GM > comprehensive but otherwise reasonably solid system + good GM.</blockquote>

Verification