Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5515379" data-attributes="member: 27160">Not much <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; My play experience with it was just one campaign.The central point is that it uses levels, and I have come to the conclusion that no system that uses levels can be very good at any form of Simulationism.&nbsp; The reasons are fairly identifiable:- Any society in which the physical power of an individual can grow to be significantly more than that of the common run is doomed to fall apart.- This is because the more powerful characters become deracinated from society; once they are significantly higher level than the local 'police' and 'army' equivalents, the law no longer effectively applies to them.&nbsp; Once they are much more powerful that their family and neighbours, those family can be little help to them and yet the characters pose a threat simply by being near the &quot;mundanes&quot; (since the characters' enemies, attacking them, would likely wipe out their family as &quot;collateral damage&quot;).- The organisation and rulership of societies ceases to be determined by ability to organise and command loyalty, or force of tradition and societal norms, if some characters are capable of single-handedly defeating the forces that keep such governmental mechanisms in place.- In short, 'Doctor Who' may be cool, but his very existence poses a threat not just to Daleks and Cyber-Men, but to all forms of organised government everywhere - good or bad.Now, by reducing what each 'level' means and swinging emphasis away from level onto skills, etc., you can clearly mitigate this effect.&nbsp; But, at root, that is saying that &quot;levels are unhelpful, here&quot; - so why not just do away with them entirely for this mode of game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5515379, member: 27160"] Not much ;) My play experience with it was just one campaign. The central point is that it uses levels, and I have come to the conclusion that [I][B]no[/B][/I] system that uses levels can be very good at [I]any[/I] form of Simulationism. The reasons are fairly identifiable: - Any society in which the physical power of an individual can grow to be significantly more than that of the common run is doomed to fall apart. - This is because the more powerful characters become deracinated from society; once they are significantly higher level than the local 'police' and 'army' equivalents, the law no longer effectively applies to them. Once they are much more powerful that their family and neighbours, those family can be little help to them and yet the characters pose a threat simply by being near the "mundanes" (since the characters' enemies, attacking them, would likely wipe out their family as "collateral damage"). - The organisation and rulership of societies ceases to be determined by ability to organise and command loyalty, or force of tradition and societal norms, if some characters are capable of single-handedly defeating the forces that keep such governmental mechanisms in place. - In short, 'Doctor Who' may be cool, but his very existence poses a threat not just to Daleks and Cyber-Men, but to all forms of organised government everywhere - good or bad. Now, by reducing what each 'level' means and swinging emphasis away from level onto skills, etc., you can clearly mitigate this effect. But, at root, that is saying that "levels are unhelpful, here" - so why not just do away with them entirely [B][I]for this mode of game[/I][/B]? [/QUOTE]

Verification