Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7800245" data-attributes="member: 177">Oh, I understand the system quite well, thank you.&nbsp; I just don't break it when I play it.Well, you said you broke the campaign.&nbsp; Clearly, that's beyond the point, now isn't it?&nbsp; This is what I meant when I was talking about not getting the point of the game.&nbsp; Recall that - I didn't say you didn't understand the rules, I said you didn't get the point.You're basically saying that you were part of a group endeavor, and then pushed beyond what others were ready to do, and broke it for everyone.&nbsp; Breaking things for other people isn't laudable, nor an indication that you know well how it is supposed to be used.&nbsp; Maybe, for that, you ought to give us a success story, not a failure.Not quite.&nbsp; So, setting aside the fact that &quot;the rules allow it!&quot; is the first approach of the rules lawyer....What should actually happen is the player suggests or asks for a compel, and the GM decides whether it is appropriate or desirable.&nbsp; If you are pushing the GM beyond their capacity to do that in a reasonable and balanced manner, you're not just &quot;using the rules hard&quot;, you're actually abusing the people at the table for in-game benefit.Oh, I understand that quite well.&nbsp; You are giving up an action (which can fail) to create that bonus.&nbsp; That part of it is pretty solidly balanced, and rather difficult to abuse.&nbsp; Much of the point is to get it so several members of the group creatively stack up a few, and hand off the bonuses to one of the group for the final blow.&nbsp; This isn't breaking anything - that's the way it is intended to function against major foes.So, if that's what you were doing, again, this is more about relationship with the people at the table than anything to do with the rules.&nbsp; If the GM hadn't clued to how this was how the game operated, so the opponents weren't scaled well to what the system allows, it was contingent on you to slow down, until the GM got up to speed.You are telling me this isn't a storygame, while neglecting to note how it isn't like a highly balanced 3e or 4e D&amp;D, where we can actually lean into the mechanics to keep things balanced and smooth.&nbsp; FATE, for example, lacks a CR system to tell the GM whether an encounter is an appropriate challenge for the group.&nbsp; The GM is largely winging it on the power level of challenges.&nbsp; FATE replaces the guardrails of balanced systems with player thoughtfulness.Were you being thoughtful of the fun of everyone at the table as you broke the game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7800245, member: 177"] Oh, I understand the system quite well, thank you. I just don't break it when I play it. Well, you said you broke the campaign. Clearly, that's beyond the point, now isn't it? This is what I meant when I was talking about not getting the point of the game. Recall that - I didn't say you didn't understand the rules, I said you [I]didn't get the point[/I]. You're basically saying that you were part of a group endeavor, and then pushed beyond what others were ready to do, and broke it for everyone. Breaking things for other people isn't laudable, nor an indication that you know well how it is supposed to be used. Maybe, for that, you ought to give us a success story, not a failure. Not quite. So, setting aside the fact that "the rules allow it!" is the first approach of the rules lawyer.... What should actually happen is the player [I]suggests or asks[/I] for a compel, and the GM decides whether it is appropriate or desirable. If you are pushing the GM beyond their capacity to do that in a reasonable and balanced manner, you're not just "using the rules hard", you're actually abusing the people at the table for in-game benefit. Oh, I understand that quite well. You are giving up an action (which can fail) to create that bonus. That part of it is pretty solidly balanced, and rather difficult to abuse. Much of the point is to get it so several members of the group creatively stack up a few, and hand off the bonuses to one of the group for the final blow. This isn't breaking anything - that's the way it is intended to function against major foes. So, if that's what you were doing, again, this is more about relationship with the people at the table than anything to do with the rules. If the GM hadn't clued to how this was how the game operated, so the opponents weren't scaled well to what the system allows, it was contingent on you to [I]slow down[/I], until the GM got up to speed. You are telling me this isn't a storygame, while neglecting to note how it isn't like a highly balanced 3e or 4e D&D, where we can actually lean into the mechanics to keep things balanced and smooth. FATE, for example, lacks a CR system to tell the GM whether an encounter is an appropriate challenge for the group. The GM is largely winging it on the power level of challenges. FATE replaces the guardrails of balanced systems with player thoughtfulness. Were you being thoughtful of the fun of everyone at the table as you broke the game? [/QUOTE]

Verification