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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5629745" data-attributes="member: 27160">Yes... and no.I really don't think those techniques are actually "better" - they are just different.  They are better for achieving a different end point.There is a pervasive idea that there exists some sort of "ultimate" roleplaying paradigm; that there is some 'perfect' game style that every group should either play or, if inexperienced or otherwise handicapped, aspire to.  I think this is bunk.Every game has a set of rules it proceeds according to.  These rules may be written down or they may not be.  They may include arcane, randomiser-related mechanisms for determining the outcome of game-world physics or they may simply consist of a set of aesthetics and principles in someone's head.  They may define what "playing pieces" in the game may do or they may define who has authority to describe what has happened in the game world at a particular time.  The rules used for roleplaying are almost infinitely variable, and they all cater excellently to a specific desired outcome.  The process of agreeing what that outcome should be, and ensuring that the selected de-facto rules support that outcome, is a deep and complex social interaction that may even have group-specific rules of its own.Selecting a published ruleset is an important shortcut beginning to this social, aim-selecting aspect of roleplaying, I think.  Players that understand the rules proposed will get a fairly good idea of the type of game to expect if those rules are selected.If the group wants a slightly different game than that primarily supported by the rules selected, there is nothing very wrong with modifying or "drifting" those rules to match what they really want more accurately.  There is a danger, however, that those with strong desires for a different game agenda than that primarily supported by the sselected system will, after accepting the original game proposal, set out to 'drift' the game more to their desired agenda without transparency or reference to the rest of the group.  It's a sort of "bait-and-switch" - especially if the GM is the one drifting the game.I perceive fiat decisions, houserules and creative rules "interpretations" as mainly signs that the RPG system as written does not perfectly match someone's desire for style or focus of play.  This may be perfectly OK - the whole group may want a game that is "kinda like game X but with more elements of whimsy/GM aesthetic/player aesthetic/whatever".  Or it may be that a subset of the group want something different from the rest of the group and are trying to "drag" things more to what they want to play.  Giving more power to the GM in this milieu may either work out well - if they successfully gauge the desires of the group and drift towards that - or badly - if they either gauge poorly or ignore the desires of the group as a whole.  The pitfalls in this - especially if the group is split in its desires - are manifold.Gauging a group's real desires is incredibly tricky business (ask any politician!) and will often lead to a "best compromise" that actually doesn't meet anyone's desires perfectly.  This is why I prefer published systems to be clear what they set out to support, and to do it well.  At least, that way, all those joining the game should have a reasonably clear picture of what "class" of game they are joining.  Games that try to attract everyone will often, I think, store up problems, as "competing" sub-groups try to "drift" the game their way.  I saw this a good deal in earlier editions of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification