Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9286113" data-attributes="member: 6779196">No, no, you misunderstand. I think the rules, as written, are mostly quite good. They express, pretty explicitly, how they are intended to be used, and when I use them that way, the results are very good. I don’t think that changing the rules to make them harder for DMs who aren’t me to misuse would improve them. It’s not “if I can’t fix the problem completely there’s no point,” it’s “I think the treatment would do more harm than the illness.” I’m certainly open to discussing ways we might better advise DMs on how to utilize the system well, but I am not open to changing the design to make it harder to use poorly, as I think doing so carries too much risk of making it worse when used appropriately.Certainly, you can design a system to be harder to use wrong by accident. However, doing so will necessarily have an impact on&nbsp; the system‘s potential when used well. Lowering the floor is well and good in theory, but not if the ceiling gets lowered in the process.Let me clarify: I don’t think a “GM-proof” system would be desirable, even if such a thing were possible. I think artistic mediums are at their best when tuned to maximize their strengths rather than to minimize their weaknesses. A hypothetical “GM-proof” RPG system would, at its best, just be a video game with no graphics and a horribly clunky user interface. Better, in my mind, to design our RPG systems to take advantage of the flexibility being run by a thinking human affords. Doing so will necessarily entail greater risk of accidental misuse, but it also creates greater potential for excellence when used well, and I think that’s a more than acceptable tradeoff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9286113, member: 6779196"] No, no, you misunderstand. I think the rules, as written, are mostly quite good. They express, pretty explicitly, how they are intended to be used, and when I use them that way, the results are very good. I don’t think that changing the rules to make them harder for DMs who aren’t me to misuse would improve them. It’s not “if I can’t fix the problem completely there’s no point,” it’s “I think the treatment would do more harm than the illness.” I’m certainly open to discussing ways we might better advise DMs on how to utilize the system well, but I am not open to changing the design to make it harder to use poorly, as I think doing so carries too much risk of making it worse when used appropriately. Certainly, you can design a system to be harder to use wrong by accident. However, doing so will necessarily have an impact on the system‘s potential when used well. Lowering the floor is well and good in theory, but not if the ceiling gets lowered in the process. Let me clarify: I don’t think a “GM-proof” system would be desirable, even if such a thing were possible. I think artistic mediums are at their best when tuned to maximize their strengths rather than to minimize their weaknesses. A hypothetical “GM-proof” RPG system would, at its best, just be a video game with no graphics and a horribly clunky user interface. Better, in my mind, to design our RPG systems to take advantage of the flexibility being run by a thinking human affords. Doing so will necessarily entail greater risk of accidental misuse, but it also creates greater potential for excellence when used well, and I think that’s a more than acceptable tradeoff. [/QUOTE]

Verification