Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 3928562" data-attributes="member: 17550">Hardly true.&nbsp; I've never said that people should play games with rules as I see them.&nbsp; It's implicit that my opinions on rules are just that: opinions.&nbsp; I'm responding to the broad strokes that gamers who don't like handwaving an extremely loose rules sets some how 'don't trust their GM', just as one example.&nbsp; I stand firmly by my opinion - game rules should be as comprehensive as play style allows, internally consistent, and most of all, fun.I'm not a proponent of ultra-detailed systems.&nbsp; I've played GURPS, HERO, even (very briefly) Rolemaster.&nbsp; GURPS was the only one that stuck around for any time at all, but even that got bogged down as rules were added.&nbsp; As an anecdote here, GURPS suffers the same problems as C&amp;C in some cases, but for different reasons - add enough books into the mix (the opposite of handwaving) and the rules cease to be internally consistent.Right now, my systems of choice are True20 (middling complexity, but much room for improvisation), Mutants and Masterminds 2e (middling-high complexity in chargen), and Savage Worlds (rules-light to medium).&nbsp; Heavier systems don't suit me or my group at all, honstly, which is one of the reasons we tried C&amp;C.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the gaps in the system ended up causing inconsistency in play, which wasn't fun for everyone.Should every encounter be balanced and fair?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Take a look at the Conan stories for the style I'm fond of - yes, Conan is a raging machine of destruction, but there's plenty of times that he simply runs away when faced with a clearly superior foe.&nbsp; For that matter, I'm fine with filling in the blanks on a game world, making details up, even letting players do so.&nbsp; It's all part of the fun.&nbsp; But I do like to have systems where water is always wet, gravity works, and the monster you fought early in your career and defeated is the same when you go looking for it later.&nbsp; Once again, though, C&amp;C is far too much with the handwaving for me.&nbsp; Does that mean C&amp;C players are some sort of frothing, mad bunch?&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; The game has its fans who're happy with the mechanics.&nbsp; Bully for them, I say.&nbsp; For me and my group, there's simply not enough consistency in rules and tone for it to be a good game for us.As always, your mileage may vary.&nbsp; Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jim Hague, post: 3928562, member: 17550"] Hardly true. I've never said that people should play games with rules as I see them. It's implicit that my opinions on rules are just that: opinions. I'm responding to the broad strokes that gamers who don't like handwaving an extremely loose rules sets some how 'don't trust their GM', just as one example. I stand firmly by my opinion - game rules should be as comprehensive as play style allows, internally consistent, and most of all, fun. I'm not a proponent of ultra-detailed systems. I've played GURPS, HERO, even (very briefly) Rolemaster. GURPS was the only one that stuck around for any time at all, but even that got bogged down as rules were added. As an anecdote here, GURPS suffers the same problems as C&C in some cases, but for different reasons - add enough books into the mix (the opposite of handwaving) and the rules cease to be internally consistent. Right now, my systems of choice are True20 (middling complexity, but much room for improvisation), Mutants and Masterminds 2e (middling-high complexity in chargen), and Savage Worlds (rules-light to medium). Heavier systems don't suit me or my group at all, honstly, which is one of the reasons we tried C&C. Unfortunately, the gaps in the system ended up causing inconsistency in play, which wasn't fun for everyone. Should every encounter be balanced and fair? Of course not. Take a look at the Conan stories for the style I'm fond of - yes, Conan is a raging machine of destruction, but there's plenty of times that he simply [i]runs away[/i] when faced with a clearly superior foe. For that matter, I'm fine with filling in the blanks on a game world, making details up, even letting players do so. It's all part of the fun. But I do like to have systems where water is always wet, gravity works, and the monster you fought early in your career and defeated is the same when you go looking for it later. Once again, though, C&C is far too much with the handwaving for me. Does that mean C&C players are some sort of frothing, mad bunch? Not at all. The game has its fans who're happy with the mechanics. Bully for them, I say. For me and my group, there's simply not enough consistency in rules and tone for it to be a good game [i]for us[/i]. As always, [i]your[/i] mileage may vary. Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces. [/QUOTE]

Verification