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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phindar" data-source="post: 3379733" data-attributes="member: 37198">I disagree, but I'm not against rules-lite games.  (Though I can't say any edition of D&D really qualifies as "rules-lite", except for Original.  The books have always been packed full of rules, and every group tends to find their way to using as many of them as they want.)  I think that players can fall into either trap, not doing things because the rules don't cover it, or only doing what the rules do cover.  But you can't blame a lack of player creativity on the rules they are using.  I'm not a big fan of heavy GM-fiat or "Mother May I" mechanics.  I'd rather have rules that cover the situation (say like Bluff, or Disguise, if I'm going to solve a lot of problems using those skills), for pretty much the same reason that I think the combat rules work better than me describing how I would hit a giant, and the GM deciding how effective such an attack would be.  The mechanic of the game shouldn't be solely dependent on my ability to "sell" anybody on how likely my chosen course of action is, even (or especially) if that's what I'm good at it.  If for no other reason than its unfair to the player who isn't as persuasive as I.I don't think having rules for things hinders the role-playing aspects of those things.  If I'm playing a character with a Bluff skill, I'm going to roleplay that character differently than I would if he didn't have the skill-- much the same as I would play a 10 Int character differently than a 16 Int character.  If bluffing is going to be a part of the game, I'd rather have the rules for it than it just be something that works only when the GM wants it to.</blockquote>

Verification