Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5479761" data-attributes="member: 386">I think that those methods do fit D&amp;D 4E well in certain circumstances - obviously not as far as I wanted to go with my hack, but with general &quot;page 42&quot;-ish rulings.As for (b), that's not entirely true; I do have preferences, but I can enjoy different types of games (Houses of the Blooded is one that springs to mind).It should come as no surprise that I didn't enjoy playing Universalis!&nbsp; I've only had two or three experiences with the game, though.&nbsp; But to focus on your first sentence - can you unpack this idea for me?&nbsp; I don't understand how that is the case.&nbsp; (Do you mean any one GM and/or player, or one-on-one type games?)That's a good question.&nbsp; That's something I have struggled with; how is it not &quot;mother-may-I&quot; play (assuming that's what you mean).I think it has to do with the impartiality of the DM.&nbsp; Do you think this is possible?&nbsp; (That is, you can avoid mother-may-I play if the DM makes rulings impartially.)&nbsp; If so, is it desired or necessary?&nbsp; Can you get the same benefits in some other manner?What do you think?I think it's desirable because it's what I prefer!&nbsp; I also think that challenge-based play is better served with the &quot;rulings, not rules&quot; model; I think this makes it easier to challenge the player, since players can think &quot;outside of the box&quot;.&nbsp; That may not be true, it might be the flavour of the challenge that's the difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 5479761, member: 386"] I think that those methods do fit D&D 4E well in certain circumstances - obviously not as far as I wanted to go with my hack, but with general "page 42"-ish rulings. As for (b), that's not entirely true; I do have preferences, but I can enjoy different types of games (Houses of the Blooded is one that springs to mind). It should come as no surprise that I didn't enjoy playing Universalis! I've only had two or three experiences with the game, though. But to focus on your first sentence - can you unpack this idea for me? I don't understand how that is the case. (Do you mean any one GM and/or player, or one-on-one type games?) That's a good question. That's something I have struggled with; how is it [i]not[/i] "mother-may-I" play (assuming that's what you mean). I [i]think[/i] it has to do with the impartiality of the DM. Do you think this is possible? (That is, you can avoid mother-may-I play if the DM makes rulings impartially.) If so, is it desired or necessary? Can you get the same benefits in some other manner? What do you think? I think it's desirable because it's what I prefer! I also think that challenge-based play is better served with the "rulings, not rules" model; I think this makes it easier to challenge the player, since players can think "outside of the box". That may not be true, it might be the flavour of the challenge that's the difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification