Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7713184" data-attributes="member: 12731">Hmm. I haven't read the blogs, just this thread, but there's something backwards about this exchange. Normally when somebody is arguing "If it's not in the rules, it's not in the gameplay" that is intended as criticism, with the reasoning that games that try too hard to regulate everything only end up passivizing the players so they cease to come up with ideas of their own, only "pushing buttons" that appear in front of them.I haven't heard about the opposite like ever, since it was a long time go the first structured (read simulationist) games left the free form era. So anytime a player feels lost, there are always all these very detailed games to play instead of whatever too-free too-form game he or she is apparently playing right now.D&D 5th edition is so successful in no small part because they have stepped back from the "regulate everything" approach, instead encouraging players to use skills in open-ended ways.(And yes, I know D&D is certainly not a poster-buy of freeformity and that many of its players would never allow "freeform" actions like swashbuckling, acrobatics and spur-of-the-moment unique actions)Suddenly coming up with the idea games need to stay away from non-regulated actions, and/or games need to mechanically cover every concievable action possible, seems incredibly outdated and busting-open-doors like...?</blockquote>