Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 7147415" data-attributes="member: 58416">I think I fall somewhere in-between.&nbsp; I don't consider myself a &quot;gamist,&quot; and some of my least favorite elements of 4E* were elements that made sense in the context of a boardgame, but&nbsp; got in the way of what I felt made sense in a rpg/story game.&nbsp; I'm willing to make sacrifices in the name of playability and accept that certain &quot;real&quot; things get in the way of a fun game, but I also feel that going to far in the other direction makes me question why I'm playing a rpg instead of just playing one of the boardgames on my shelf.&nbsp; That being said, I do see the appeal of a cleaner set of rules.&nbsp; I actually think that a cleaner set of rules helps to foster a game in which &quot;rulings not rules&quot; is the mantra.&nbsp; If you're expecting me to design my own stuff, that (imo) becomes easier if I can design my own stuff from a mindset of knowing how the game works instead of guessing.&nbsp; It's also worth noting that I, as an individual, do not equate &quot;rules lite&quot; with being cleaner or more efficient; some of the games I personally view as being intuitively designed and/or well designed are somewhat heavy in comparison to D&amp;D.&nbsp; In contrast, I find some &quot;lite&quot; games to be surprisingly unintuitive or clunky despite fewer rules for a rpg.*Not hating on the particular edition, just using it as an example which is familiar to the likely audience on Enworld.&nbsp; For what it's worth, I actually like a lot of what 4E did -even if I didn't always agree with the underlying mentality of how the game was built or evolved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 7147415, member: 58416"] I think I fall somewhere in-between. I don't consider myself a "gamist," and some of my least favorite elements of 4E* were elements that made sense in the context of a boardgame, but got in the way of what I felt made sense in a rpg/story game. I'm willing to make sacrifices in the name of playability and accept that certain "real" things get in the way of a fun game, but I also feel that going to far in the other direction makes me question why I'm playing a rpg instead of just playing one of the boardgames on my shelf. That being said, I do see the appeal of a cleaner set of rules. I actually think that a cleaner set of rules helps to foster a game in which "rulings not rules" is the mantra. If you're expecting me to design my own stuff, that (imo) becomes easier if I can design my own stuff from a mindset of knowing how the game works instead of guessing. It's also worth noting that I, as an individual, do not equate "rules lite" with being cleaner or more efficient; some of the games I personally view as being intuitively designed and/or well designed are somewhat heavy in comparison to D&D. In contrast, I find some "lite" games to be surprisingly unintuitive or clunky despite fewer rules for a rpg. *Not hating on the particular edition, just using it as an example which is familiar to the likely audience on Enworld. For what it's worth, I actually like a lot of what 4E did -even if I didn't always agree with the underlying mentality of how the game was built or evolved. [/QUOTE]

Verification