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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2387705" data-attributes="member: 23012">Ummmm ... it's not, and I never claimed that it was.My point was merely that a good rules light system doesn't *need* "new things for its toolkit".  By relying on a smaller number of more general rules, the tool kit is already complete.Yes, whatever.  I was in no way disputing that.  My point was merely that a complete, good rules light system can cover *all* the same situations that a rules heavy system does, but simply with less detail.  Okay, you're missing the point of 'rules light' systems here.  Rules light system are *not* 'simulationist' in nature, and people who want simulationist games are better off using rules heavy systems.(Of course, the fact that we are talking about games for worlds in which barbarians clad in loinclothes fight giant flying lizards that breath fire makes the whole talk of 'realistic simulation' a bit strange IMO, but that is a different matter.)In short: there is no problem with 'remembering how the situation was handled last week' with a rules light system because ... gasp ... the rules are LIGHT.  There is only a problem if you are trying to bend a rules light system into a simulationist mold.  But that is a silly thing to do.Fine.  You have a different set of desiderata for your games that people who like rules light systems do.  Big surprise.None of this invalidates my original point -- viz. that Mearls' comment that rules heavy systems give GMs more 'tools' for their 'kits' entirely misses the raison d'etre for rules light systems in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification