Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VHawkwinter" data-source="post: 9874526" data-attributes="member: 7040136">As someone who shared some of their criticisms and was partially receptive to some of the ideas they had on offer - the tabletop industry as a whole (aside from a couple niche German imports, a new minor revision of the RuneQuest from 2005 I already had (Mythras), and some GURPS stuff) has not really made products for those of us who like more simulationist leaning games in a very long time (Though Ed Greenwood's self published setting material on DM's Guild is lovely as someone who is not using the mechanics). The tabletop industry moved in a different direction away from games I like, such that I have found myself making my own game over the last ~2 years rather than liking the new offerings.This one, I agree, is good.I did not enjoy PF2 when I tried it. It felt like a mix of things I hated from 4e, and things I hated from 5e, and the lack of backward compatibility meant I couldn't reasonably 'fix' it by importing subsystems and classes I liked from games I thought had better gameplay. Yes, they accomplished closer class balance, but they did so in a way I found not fun at the table. That said, the last time I played either PF2 or 5e was early 2020 before lockdowns.My experience of X Cards actually seeing use has been exclusively been by players abusing the mechanic to veto the central premise of a prepublished adventure, skip the combat, and finish the module in half the allotted time, ruining the one-shot for the other four people at the table. Plus, if you're someone whose "Lines" a la "Lines and Veils" includes "retcons" - even non-abused X-Card use is likely to ruin the session or campaign. And then that controversial youtube real-play scene I'm sure we're all aware of at least tangentially, where the X-Card was available and didn't see use, and people found the non-X-Carded content traumatic - though I don't know the people involved in that controversy, from reading about everything that happened, I really think they needed in-advance adult discussion of what kinds of polarising content was and was not appropriate for the campaign, Lines and Veils stuff, during session 0. Though I can appreciate what the X-Card designer hoped for, I genuinely do not think X-Cards are fit for purpose - just a new way for bad-actors to ruin things for everyone else.These, on the other hand, I think are great. There is no social contract that can be assumed except what was explicitly discussed and agreed upon. So talk it out.However, I do think setting up the rules in such a way as to prevent the GM's abuse of authority (such as a structured group vote on how to resolve mechanics which can be interpreted multiple ways, with the GM only voting to break ties; and the GM not being allowed to introduce houserules after people have made characters without a majority vote to adopt the houserule) - I have found useful for reducing arguments and having players tell me they consider my GMing very fair.I think a bigger reason to make the rules more explicit isn't about a fear of abuse of authority though, it's about consistent game mechanics, and acknowledging that an on-the-spot ruling is very unlikely to be as consistent, fair, and balanced as something a game designer spent hours crunching the numbers or doing research for. Putting less on the shoulders of the GM means they don't have to do it all, you can delegate some portions of game arbitrage to the players, reducing the cognitive load on the GM, and you get a better, more consistent game as a result.And tying it back to my opening comment, given their preference for 'rules-as-physics', and their preference for higher powered play (certainly higher powered than I like, and I am very happy with open-ended 6th-9th level 3e spells being in a D&D type game - just not wish-economy exploits or similar), I would speculate that the "fixes" the industry has moved toward since 2010, would not be considered improvements to them - as the ones I've tried generally haven't been for me (Except maybe the mid-2010s German-Translated "The Dark Eye").Thriving, yes, but making games for a different demographic - good for other people, certainly, but if I am not having fun playing a lot of these new systems for more than a one-shot, I won't want to use them for campaigns I run, and won't really want to join one.</blockquote>

Verification