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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5809870">I disagree.  The level of magic needs to be dependent upon the world in question.  That's what makes the game interesting, the variety.  Not one singular way to approach a given subject in every given situation.    Eh, again, this is situational.  It plays into the above, that's for certain, but in situations or settings where magic is not "dark and mysterious" I don't think this is necessary.Safety net?  Like how you don't die until you drop below -X health?Like how no matter how beat up you get you never get wounded?Honestly the problem here is that removing these perceived "Saftey nets" starts to impact not just how characters are played, but how players percieve their characters, since things like wounds actually physically happen to their characters.  When a game starts stepping on the perception of the PC it starts feeling less and less like the players have any real say in the game.Honestly without specifics I think this is mostly personal perception.  Run a dangerous game if you want.  Run a safe game if you want.  Run a heroic game if you want.  These are decisions that should be left up to the individual games, not forced upon the genre as a whole.I agree that if a group wants to be more "role-play-ey" that they should be able to do that, but honestly you can't really achieve tactical play without a visualization of the combat.  The game should indeed be adaptable to any setting.  Unfortunately, almost all of your points up till now(and including the next one) are strongly against that level of flexibility.Whose logic exactly?Don't answer, it's rhetorical.  There's no One Logic to rule them all, attempting to establish one is just bold-faced "In-my-opinionism".  There's no right answer to fantasy, that's why it's called fantasy and not "history".  Particle physics in my fantasy game?  Sure!  In some other guy's?  Up to him.Agreed.I'll go out on a limb here and doubt that most RPG players are economists, or have even a basic grasp of any single economic theory, much less the plural.  Lacking achievement is dependent upon each and every game.Agreed, 110% on that last one especially.Honestly you seem to be going back and forth between thinking that there is a specific manner in which every game should function, and suggesting that each player and game should be unique to them.  Some of the differences between your points are nearly irreconcilable, others aren't.</blockquote>

Verification