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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 9751959" data-attributes="member: 891">Yeah. Whether I've favorited extremely detailed system or very light systems, very narrative systems or very gamist systems - I've always held to liking very CONSISTENT systems.Have some common metrics, and re-use them everywhere instead of making 'special mechanics and subsystems' for so many things.I said either here or in another thread that the final "break" for me on PF2E was the influence subsystem. It was just there to be there, and felt out of place with the rest of the things. It inserted itself over our roleplay and/or skill trade of.And it wasn't even all that inconsistent. It was just inconsistent 'enough'.Somewhere else I mentioned that "back in my day" we all learned AD&D 1E, and where I played, folks did the games 'RAW' or you were a cheater. I know almost everyone around here seems to have had rule 0 since the late 70s, but where I was we didn't have none of that cheater nonsense. You played by the rules or the door was that way. First time I saw Rule 0 was maybe 1999 or whatever year it was I found BESM. My first reaction was to consider upping my pitchfork budget to go heretic hunting 'cause I done been brought up different than them there folk'. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />- Which I bring up only because... Early on I had to face off against a system that couldn't even be consistent over how to roll to hit somebody... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />AD&D 1E had at least 37 different systems for every 1 situation, and all 37 of them used 43 different game design philosophies. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Then I found 'The Fantasy Trip' and pretty everything was 'roll 3d6 vs this number, if you're <= you did it. The rest of this book is just waxing poetic because printers want a certain page count to get a discount on staples or something.'And since that moment I've realized a game system has all of zero excuse to not be consistent. Regardless of complexity.Unless of course, they needed to fill page 63 with something to get a discount on staples... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> But that's what art budgets are for.I was first exposed to tRPGs in 1980, got AD&D books right after getting the 'redbox' basic set. Found the Fantasy Trip in 82, and had my first regular group in 84 -it'd been constant one shots before that. So from the beginning I was trying to get people to switch to more consistent RPGs and it's how I ended up being a mostly forever GM.And by the standards of 1982, The Fantasy Trip was also a rules light game. Even if it did evolve into GURPS which is both not rules light and also not very consistent... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification