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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anselyn" data-source="post: 5675180" data-attributes="member: 55456">Seconded. An excellent analysis and presentation. Two points occur to me. I think Belasir mentioned DQ in a previous post. I'd like to praise that as a game from 1980 that had a remarkably clear set of rules that were well written and well cross-referenced (IIRC). It provided an excellent tactical battle game at the heart of the system along with an evocative magic system. I played DQ2 for most of the 80s and it was great for its time (and I can appreciate why it was to Belasir's tastes too) Secondly, there has been a lot of talk of GM fiat - and I feel that the word "fiat" is both technically correct but inherently slightly perjorartive. Interestingly, we also talk about DM's being the arbiters of the rules - but we don't want them being arbitrary. So, my question, for Balesir really, is when one is playing your style of game as detailed above and you find a rule that is in the rulebook and known to all but not clearly stated as it transpires that the players have different interpretations of the rule do you then. a) Go by the DM's interpretation of the rule.b) Discuss comunally the correct interpretation of the rule until the correct undertanding of it is clear, which may take a while.c) Go for a quick consensus of the probable meaning and find a definitive understanding later - possibly by consulting the internet etc. The GM charing the discussion. I think my groups would go for c) so that play continues. But, my point is that even with rules as well written as DQ, at some point all games need issues settled. What's your instinct or habit over these issues.</blockquote>

Verification