Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9595401" data-attributes="member: 4937">A GM can always fudge.&nbsp; It's just the nature of the fudging differs in different games.Well, for one that's because it's not a characterization of &quot;rules light play&quot;.&nbsp; It's a characterization of a process of play in which rules lawyering is just one subcategory.&nbsp; But I own several rules light rulebooks and they tend to be up front about this process of play.&nbsp; One of the ones I own just advises the GM to concede anything that the players argue simply to get the game moving on, which, while I understand where that is coming from makes this sort of wheedling and argument likely to become the dominate mode of play where you to take that advice literally.&nbsp; It's not always directly confrontational either, as it could be a player buttering up the GM or leading a lot of propositions with &quot;wouldn't it be cool...&quot; sorts of arguments where the goal is to get the GM to agree to your resolution before you make it.Rules light systems with player defined powers and abilities it takes the mode of lots of arguing for &quot;Does my tag apply?&quot; or &quot;I think my tag should apply because...&quot;.You may not have encountered it, but I've encountered it in several contexts, both among friends and at conventions.&nbsp; Hints of it even show up in this play through of FATE on streaming:[MEDIA=youtube]NOFXtAHg7vU:2[/MEDIA]That I felt was one of the most dysfunctional RPG sessions I'd ever seen committed to film, but I guess it takes all types.Fish don't recognize what it means to be wet either.&nbsp; I think the more sports you play and watch, the more obvious it is a truthful description of the game.&nbsp; It's one of the big reasons it's hard to convince my fellow Americans to take an interest in the sport.&nbsp; If the referees would throw more cards for simulation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9595401, member: 4937"] A GM can always fudge. It's just the nature of the fudging differs in different games. Well, for one that's because it's not a characterization of "rules light play". It's a characterization of a process of play in which rules lawyering is just one subcategory. But I own several rules light rulebooks and they tend to be up front about this process of play. One of the ones I own just advises the GM to concede anything that the players argue simply to get the game moving on, which, while I understand where that is coming from makes this sort of wheedling and argument likely to become the dominate mode of play where you to take that advice literally. It's not always directly confrontational either, as it could be a player buttering up the GM or leading a lot of propositions with "wouldn't it be cool..." sorts of arguments where the goal is to get the GM to agree to your resolution before you make it. Rules light systems with player defined powers and abilities it takes the mode of lots of arguing for "Does my tag apply?" or "I think my tag should apply because...". You may not have encountered it, but I've encountered it in several contexts, both among friends and at conventions. Hints of it even show up in this play through of FATE on streaming: [MEDIA=youtube]NOFXtAHg7vU:2[/MEDIA] That I felt was one of the most dysfunctional RPG sessions I'd ever seen committed to film, but I guess it takes all types. Fish don't recognize what it means to be wet either. I think the more sports you play and watch, the more obvious it is a truthful description of the game. It's one of the big reasons it's hard to convince my fellow Americans to take an interest in the sport. If the referees would throw more cards for simulation. [/QUOTE]

Verification