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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7081844" data-attributes="member: 996">The experience the OP related to begin with wasn't in D&D - 'Burning Wheel' or something.  If you're sensing a vibe it's probably indie v D&D - and it may well be coming from both sides of the conversation. It would be like throwing a dart at an enemy behind a stone wall, it's simply not going to work w/o line of effect.   There needn't be any such a necessity:  if the game already has resource-driven rules, for instance, they can simply be adapted.   They could decline to accumulate said resources - or to use them that way if they're an existing system being adapted to that purpose. 'Better' is clearly subjective, but it's not like using one technique precludes others, so you don't need to decide which is better and use it exclusively.  Not that I see that being acknowledged, either.   Very true.  And the same thing happens with games, styles, and techniques.  The classifications aren't inherently invalid, but if treated as absolutes or as antithetical, become problematic. Since a given player's 'type' can actually shift emphasis with the situation or morph over time, a flexible enough system to smoothly accommodate multiple 'types' or styles or agendas or whatever set of boxes is under discussion, can be a plus even if there's not a conflict at the table, initially, or even if there is (say the table's 'type' shifts in step, or it's a single-player game, for instance).</blockquote>

Verification