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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4162030" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think you've drastically misinterpreted the points in two ways.First off, it could very easily be that people have been convinced that the new rules are better than the old, despite earlier objections.  That happens all the time.  Heck, I was a pretty staunch 2e supporter for a brief period of time, at least until I actually got to play 3e.  Just looking at the rules without actually playing them can lead to some really weird trains of thought. Secondly, and this is something I tried to argue with Andor above, is that games should not be judged solely based on personal preferences.  The quality of a given rule, as to whether or not it can get the job done, is independent of whether or not you LIKE the rule.  Just as I can say that Go is a well designed game with plenty of tactical depth of play AND I hate it.  I find it mind bogglingly boring.  But, that's my problem, not a problem with the game.The question before us is whether or not decoupling rules from physics leads to inconsistencies within the game world.  The answer is no.  The existence of numerous games where the mechanics have next to nothing to do with the game world - 1e D&D with its lack of skill mechanics, Villains and Vigilantes with its complete lack of non-supers rules, or rules light games like Amber or The Dying Earth - prove that you can have rules sets where the world is largely left unmodeled and still have consistent, enjoyable games.</blockquote>

Verification