Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7468374" data-attributes="member: 6778044">This is something I’ve been saying for a while. Although it’s important to recognize that there are a whole lot of people that do like to play it like a “standard” game, and there’s nothing wrong with that.To me the difference is one of play style. I prefer the rules to be primarily in the background, and they are tools to help the DM adjudicate the events in the fiction. They should not interfere with the fiction, and I largely prefer if they don’t define the fiction either. This approach is more old school, works well with a theater of the mind approach, and especially well in AD&amp;D style with the DM responsible for the rules and the players responsible for their characters.&nbsp; They often tend to include a balance of exploration, role-playing and combat, where combat is often the least important pillar.I do think the White Wolf storyteller games get a bit too free-form for my liking. Those that like to optimize, who like to “master” the game from the standpoint of character build tend to prefer the measurable mechanics more, and the games often focus more on combat because that’s where mastering mechanics shines. Especially on a grid. Of course there are a lot more that two options, and most games are a mix. The game system itself can be geared toward one style or another. The idea that they are game building systems has also been discussed, but a good percentage of them are a complete ruleset that you could play them as is. a AD&amp;D for example with not only random monster tables also had random dungeon generation tables. You could play it, even by yourself, without a DM at all, right out of the book. Probably wouldn’t be terribly interesting, but you could do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7468374, member: 6778044"] This is something I’ve been saying for a while. Although it’s important to recognize that there are a whole lot of people that do like to play it like a “standard” game, and there’s nothing wrong with that. To me the difference is one of play style. I prefer the rules to be primarily in the background, and they are tools to help the DM adjudicate the events in the fiction. They should not interfere with the fiction, and I largely prefer if they don’t define the fiction either. This approach is more old school, works well with a theater of the mind approach, and especially well in AD&D style with the DM responsible for the rules and the players responsible for their characters. They often tend to include a balance of exploration, role-playing and combat, where combat is often the least important pillar. I do think the White Wolf storyteller games get a bit too free-form for my liking. Those that like to optimize, who like to “master” the game from the standpoint of character build tend to prefer the measurable mechanics more, and the games often focus more on combat because that’s where mastering mechanics shines. Especially on a grid. Of course there are a lot more that two options, and most games are a mix. The game system itself can be geared toward one style or another. The idea that they are game building systems has also been discussed, but a good percentage of them are a complete ruleset that you could play them as is. a AD&D for example with not only random monster tables also had random dungeon generation tables. You could play it, even by yourself, without a DM at all, right out of the book. Probably wouldn’t be terribly interesting, but you could do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification