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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 2236414" data-attributes="member: 307">Nope, you just are assuming answers that fill in the blanks because you assume them to be true. They aren't. When you don't actually say what you mean, you lead to people drawing different conclusions than the ones you want to convey.No they aren't, but both are necessary to evaluate what sort of game is being run. Which is very different from your bald statement that "rules don't matter at all".Actually, it has a great deal to do with what sort of game I can expect. The fact that you can't understand this indicates that you don't even know what sort of argument you are making. If I'm playing a game in which everyone is the same power level as hobbits, that's a very different game in tone and feel from one in which everyone is the same power level as First Age Noldor. Saying "I'm using Tolkien" doesn't tell me which one to expect.No, but you need to explain that those are the rules you will be using. Your first argument was that the rule system doesn't matter at all. You defeat your own argument when you start saying "well, to accomplish this I'm going to use X rules." Because now you are saying that the rules system does matter.Except that your argument here has been that the DM can discard rules willy-nilly in favor of a good "story" because the rules don't matter at all. Which argument do you want to make?No, I'm saying that once you have a DM who decides to set aside the rules for no reason other than "because I said so", you aren't playing D&D any more. You are playing a different game, and one in which the DM is hiding the ball from the players.Then again, that's been my experience with Storyteller games. They have all been deadly dull. The system seems to lend itself to deadly dull games.Rules form the shared framework that allows a group of people to work together. Without them you just have anarchy and unpredictability. Players can't decide what they should be doing, since they don't have a good idea of what the probable outcomes of their decisions would be. At that point, you may as well just be writing a story at home.And yet Amber and Larp have rules, rules that make the role-playing flow. In your local Larp, would it lend itself to role-playing if someone decided that the rules didn't apply and that they had access to nuclear weapons because they said so? Or would it detract from the role-playing to deal with someone who decided that? In Fudge defining the rules to be used is an important part of the system, it is the antithesis of your argument that "system doesn't matter", because it is al;l about defining the system. "Let's pretend" doesn't lend itself to role-playing, it lends itself to bad amateur theater.Of course, that's not what I said, but have fun attacking your strawman. You are the guy who wheeled out the "rule-play" line and claimed it was you who was really "role-playing". Spare me your pretentious superiority. These are games in which people pretend to be knights and wizards fighting dragons and zombies. Talking about it like its high theatre just makes you look silly.And some might say that this proves what a pretentious person you are. And how very little you know.Did you have a framework to inform your decisions? If not, then no, you weren't playing D&D. If you did, then you were. Whether the rules get used in a session is beside the point. The question is whether the rules help give infomation concerning the nature of the decisions made in the session.</blockquote>

Verification