Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9889119" data-attributes="member: 7026617">You may be misreading my statement.&nbsp; I don't think any of those systems proactively encourage &quot;playing the GM&quot;.&nbsp; As I stated in my post, there are lighter systems that focus very much on &quot;rulings not rules&quot;, and I'm firmly of the opininion that approach passively encourages playing the GM.As you can see, I disagree.&nbsp; The more a system puts most nuance in the hands of the GM, the more it does that and I don't think its hard to see why.There are lighter systems that simply don't assume any mechanical nuance--they're just ways of generating narrative results, and as such mechanical nuance is moot--but I'll state I see no way of having mechanical nuance with a lighter system without it being in the hands of the GM.&nbsp; My view is you can have mechanical nuance, light rules, or output somewhat independent of the GM--pick two.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9889119, member: 7026617"] You may be misreading my statement. I don't think any of those systems proactively encourage "playing the GM". As I stated in my post, there are lighter systems that focus very much on "rulings not rules", and I'm firmly of the opininion that [I]approach[/I] passively encourages playing the GM. As you can see, I disagree. The more a system puts most nuance in the hands of the GM, the more it does that and I don't think its hard to see why. There are lighter systems that simply don't assume any mechanical nuance--they're just ways of generating narrative results, and as such mechanical nuance is moot--but I'll state I see no way of having mechanical nuance with a lighter system without it being in the hands of the GM. My view is you can have mechanical nuance, light rules, or output somewhat independent of the GM--pick two. [/QUOTE]

Verification