Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3964020" data-attributes="member: 8439">I agree with this middle ground. Just because a group can be &quot;low trust&quot; enough to break a well designed system doesn't mean that any system complaint can be dismissed as the group playing it being low trust. Since I enjoy running and playing one shots at gamedays and conventions, I judge systems and play ideas from a perspective of moderate default trust. The idea that system flaws could be overcome by a high enough trust environment is nice and all, but doesn't stop them from being system flaws. And of course, trust doesn't just happen, so a growing hobby has to be based on a game that can be played enjoyably while trust is being established. A game that requires a high trust environment to play smoothly will always be a niche product suitable only for long established groups willing to experiment. I would be perfectly happy to look at a supplemental rules set that said at the outset &quot;these rules can be broken by players looking to break the game, or abused by DMs looking to &quot;win&quot; it, and should be implemented with consideration of your group's goals and interpersonal dynamics as well as your plot and system preferences.&quot; But a) said rules would have to add something special for that risk factor, and b) I wouldn't devote resources to a core system with that sort of caveat, because as above I don't have an established group with that level of trust and yet I still enjoy gaming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kahuna Burger, post: 3964020, member: 8439"] I agree with this middle ground. Just because a group can be "low trust" enough to break a well designed system doesn't mean that any system complaint can be dismissed as the group playing it being low trust. Since I enjoy running and playing one shots at gamedays and conventions, I judge systems and play ideas from a perspective of moderate default trust. The idea that system flaws could be overcome by a high enough trust environment is nice and all, but doesn't stop them from being system flaws. And of course, trust doesn't just happen, so a growing hobby has to be based on a game that can be played enjoyably while trust is being established. A game that [B]requires[/B] a high trust environment to play smoothly will always be a niche product suitable only for long established groups willing to experiment. I would be perfectly happy to look at a supplemental rules set that said at the outset "these rules can be broken by players looking to break the game, or abused by DMs looking to "win" it, and should be implemented with consideration of your group's goals and interpersonal dynamics as well as your plot and system preferences." But a) said rules would have to add something special for that risk factor, and b) I wouldn't devote resources to a core system with that sort of caveat, because as above I don't have an established group with that level of trust and yet I still enjoy gaming. [/QUOTE]

Verification