Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8960112" data-attributes="member: 29398">Sorry, but in my eyes the proposed structure has already got a hole in it, in that IMO what you're calling &quot;GM's say&quot; and &quot;System's say&quot; very much overlap.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because a GM can, if desired, redesign or kitbash the system into what s/he wants to run.(the question of whether those redesigns or kitbashes result in an objectively better, worse, or similar game experience isn't relevant here; what matters is that the GM can do it at all)If I had the a) skill and b) equipment to record what's in my head I'd be doing this all the time!First thing: you seem to be assuming a level of design tightness and resistance to modification that - while good for cars and many other things - is almost antithetical to the make-it-your-own-game philosophy that's been deeply ingrained since day one; a philosophy that really does set RPGs apart from almost any other type of game and, one could argue, almost any other type of product design.&nbsp; Take away that philosophy and you take away much of what makes the hobby what it is.I'm not sure I'd ever get to the point of applying that litmus test; such a system would 99% likely have failed at an earlier hurdle, that being whether I wanted anything to do with it.&nbsp; An RPG system that resistant to kitbashing or change is laying down some IMO unnecessarily-clear and stark borders, in that I-the-consumer am either going to like it - all of it - as it is or I'm not.&nbsp; There's no middle ground, no real room for &quot;I like most of this but it needs a few changes&quot;, which if nothing else serves to limit both the market and potential uptake for said system.And, with such a system, if I like it that means I like all of it thus why would I change it, and if I don't like it - or parts of it -&nbsp; why would I bother with it given its stiff resistance to modifications?(edit - typos)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8960112, member: 29398"] Sorry, but in my eyes the proposed structure has already got a hole in it, in that IMO what you're calling "GM's say" and "System's say" very much overlap. Why? Because a GM can, if desired, redesign or kitbash the system into what s/he wants to run. (the question of whether those redesigns or kitbashes result in an objectively better, worse, or similar game experience isn't relevant here; what matters is that the GM can do it at all) If I had the a) skill and b) equipment to record what's in my head I'd be doing this [I]all the time[/I]! First thing: you seem to be assuming a level of design tightness and resistance to modification that - while good for cars and many other things - is almost antithetical to the make-it-your-own-game philosophy that's been deeply ingrained since day one; a philosophy that really does set RPGs apart from almost any other type of game and, one could argue, almost any other type of product design. Take away that philosophy and you take away much of what makes the hobby what it is. I'm not sure I'd ever get to the point of applying that litmus test; such a system would 99% likely have failed at an earlier hurdle, that being whether I wanted anything to do with it. An RPG system that resistant to kitbashing or change is laying down some IMO unnecessarily-clear and stark borders, in that I-the-consumer am either going to like it - all of it - as it is or I'm not. There's no middle ground, no real room for "I like most of this but it needs a few changes", which if nothing else serves to limit both the market and potential uptake for said system. And, with such a system, if I like it that means I like all of it thus why would I change it, and if I don't like it - or parts of it - why would I bother with it given its stiff resistance to modifications? (edit - typos) [/QUOTE]

Verification