Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 4873171" data-attributes="member: 26563">I definitely think Swords &amp; Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience than the crappy experience that same ref would provide with a set of rules where the players have more &quot;rights&quot; established by the books.For the referee with medium skills? I think it depends a lot on what makes him &quot;medium.&quot; A ref who fudges rules in a 3e game might rock in a free-form game where those rules are supposed to be fudged. A ref who runs a tight ship on combat but can't come up with an evocative description to save his life would shine more in a game where complex combat is more of a centerpiece. Refs who have an involuntary tendency to come down against the players - much better in a 3e game where the numbers are established. Refs who get tripped up because they can't keep track of large combats but use them anyway - better in Swords &amp; Wizardry. Mediocre referees tend to be mediocre in different ways.Some referees, also, are particularly gifted in running one or the other style of game. I'm pretty darn good with Swords &amp; Wizardry, OD&amp;D, and Basic, a bit slow with AD&amp;D, and only mediocre with 3e. (haven't DMed 4e at all). So that varies too - a DM who's in the groove for &quot;his&quot; sort of game makes a huge difference.I don't think there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between the game system and defending the game from a bad DM. A bad DM will manage to produce a crappy game no matter what rules he's using. A good DM will produce a good game in spite of a rule system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mythmere1, post: 4873171, member: 26563"] I definitely think Swords & Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience than the crappy experience that same ref would provide with a set of rules where the players have more "rights" established by the books. For the referee with medium skills? I think it depends a lot on what makes him "medium." A ref who fudges rules in a 3e game might rock in a free-form game where those rules are supposed to be fudged. A ref who runs a tight ship on combat but can't come up with an evocative description to save his life would shine more in a game where complex combat is more of a centerpiece. Refs who have an involuntary tendency to come down against the players - much better in a 3e game where the numbers are established. Refs who get tripped up because they can't keep track of large combats but use them anyway - better in Swords & Wizardry. Mediocre referees tend to be mediocre in different ways. Some referees, also, are particularly gifted in running one or the other style of game. I'm pretty darn good with Swords & Wizardry, OD&D, and Basic, a bit slow with AD&D, and only mediocre with 3e. (haven't DMed 4e at all). So that varies too - a DM who's in the groove for "his" sort of game makes a huge difference. I don't think there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between the game system and defending the game from a bad DM. A bad DM will manage to produce a crappy game no matter what rules he's using. A good DM will produce a good game in spite of a rule system. [/QUOTE]

Verification