Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shayuri" data-source="post: 7716423" data-attributes="member: 4936">System is important in terms of what 'tools' it gives the game, I'd say.Earlier versions of D&amp;D had many ways to inflict 'consequences' on player characters. Later versions had fewer. Whether or not to USE those tools was always up to the GM...and the GM's decision would be influenced by the players wishes.That's all I meant. You're right in saying I pooh-poohed system a bit hard, then heel-turned and said the systems had been changing. It's a sort of complex organic process, I think...where new systems of game evolve to meet a simultaneously evolving need among gaming groups. The interdependency between what systems a game provides players with, and the kind of games people play with systems is not so easily quantified perhaps.I mostly remember in my games of 3e...which still had a fair number of 'fail one save and yer out' mechanics intact...we fairly quickly reached a sort of detente in my groups where the players elected not to use stupid-broken mechanics to make characters and the GM elected not to 'overuse' hyperlethal scenarios outside of situations where they felt dramatically appropriate. It wasn't really -discussed- or anything. We just found our respective tolerances through a few tense moments and went along with that.So even though 3e, as a system, could be played as fairly lethal (albeit perhaps not to the extent 1st and 2nd editions could be), we didn't play it that way. The tools provided to make it that way were voluntarily eschewed...always with the 'unless dramatically appropriate' caveat. What constitutes dramatically appropriate is one of the many places each group varies on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shayuri, post: 7716423, member: 4936"] System is important in terms of what 'tools' it gives the game, I'd say. Earlier versions of D&D had many ways to inflict 'consequences' on player characters. Later versions had fewer. Whether or not to USE those tools was always up to the GM...and the GM's decision would be influenced by the players wishes. That's all I meant. You're right in saying I pooh-poohed system a bit hard, then heel-turned and said the systems had been changing. It's a sort of complex organic process, I think...where new systems of game evolve to meet a simultaneously evolving need among gaming groups. The interdependency between what systems a game provides players with, and the kind of games people play with systems is not so easily quantified perhaps. I mostly remember in my games of 3e...which still had a fair number of 'fail one save and yer out' mechanics intact...we fairly quickly reached a sort of detente in my groups where the players elected not to use stupid-broken mechanics to make characters and the GM elected not to 'overuse' hyperlethal scenarios outside of situations where they felt dramatically appropriate. It wasn't really -discussed- or anything. We just found our respective tolerances through a few tense moments and went along with that. So even though 3e, as a system, could be played as fairly lethal (albeit perhaps not to the extent 1st and 2nd editions could be), we didn't play it that way. The tools provided to make it that way were voluntarily eschewed...always with the 'unless dramatically appropriate' caveat. What constitutes dramatically appropriate is one of the many places each group varies on. [/QUOTE]

Verification