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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4673007" data-attributes="member: 54707">Wik, when I was a kid, in my late teens, a long, long time ago, I ran some incredibly good games as murder mysteries, and as criminal missions/adventures. Even back then I was already interested in criminal work, or I should say, work against criminality. And at that time I was playing AD&D.I didn't feel that lack of skills, etc. interfered at all with character abilities because although no "skills" were describe or laid out, per se, this didn't matter. The rules were so flexible and fluid that you could make up stuff as you went along. If somebody wanted to do something that involved basically an investigative technique and it wasn't covered by the rules then we played it like we thought it would be played in real life, given the technology and capabilities of the milieu, and given the intelligence and cleverness of both the character and the player. So in effect the rules didn't prevent anything, and opened up pretty much everything. Without skills defining what was and was not possible you could be incredibly innovative and original. the strength of the rules as written were that there were no real and restrictive rules covering such matters. And that's a very simple and yet brilliant concept that a lot of game designers could learn a lot from, that you don't want a rule for blowing your nose or wiping your tail or for how to describe innovation. You just want to encourage innovation and creativity as  a natural function with a rule-set, not strangle it to death with over-description.You see when a thing hasn't been described or codified then you can make it up as you go along or adapt from the real world and that is very effective and fun for both the DM and the player. You don't have to unlearn what you already know. One real weakness of later editions I think is the attempt to over-rule and micro-manage every aspect of the game to the point where role-play becomes in effect, rules-play. That was especially bad in 3E which I played about twice and then thereafter intentionally forgot about as an edition. (I did like 3Es attempt to address the idea of skills, just didn't like the idea of making it complex and of basically deeply micro-cataloguing and segregating skills, when in fact many real human skills naturally and intentionally overlap in both function and training.)Now as far as later editions go I think FS is right. If I were playing a later edition and it were a murder mystery, I like 4E to best handle it. Because the skills system is more fluid, flexible, and less restrictive and micro-managerial in construction. It leaves more room open for adjustment and ad hoc play and restructuring. If you're gonna have to have a defined skill system then I much prefer 4E flexibility and simplicity to 3E micromanagerial tendencies. Though I could do without either when it comes to game and character and player "skills."I've never really understood this impulse either, how individuals can tie themselves and their own sense of personal reputation or honor to something like the edition of a game, of all things. To me everything is worthy of criticism, and certainly things far more important than a game, because nothing improves without a real and critical examination of both strengths and assets, and faults and liabilities. And if you can't criticize and properly examine and analyze something as relatively unimportant as a game, then what can you realistically criticize and examine?But, c'est la vie. This is the internet after all.</blockquote>

Verification