Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4405988" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are multiple dimensions to this issue. RM2/Classic is very different from (for example) Moldvay Basic D&D in that respect. The former presupposes a lot of GM intervention, choices between mechanical options, etc. GM judgement is required for settling on the ruleset. GM judgement is also required to set manoeuvre difficulties, which then serve as inputs into the mechanics.On the other hand, Moldvay Basic sets out a set of mechanics to be applied, and then says to the GM "Make the rest up, on an action-by-action basis" (one example is given, from memory, of the GM deciding that a PC has an 80% chance to jump up and reach a lever). The nature of GM judgement required here is quite different - unlike RM, for example, it doesn't require the GM to be a co-designer.In neither game, however, do the mechanics actively get in the way of delivering the intended play experience. What prompted my original comment was the fact that, where mechanics do inhibit play, the players of the game are blamed rather than the designers. (What would count as a mechanic that hinders play? Well, 3E fly was the original topic of discussion. Elemental Companion for RM2 is generally agreed to be broken in multiple respects, which me and my players found out the hard way. More controversially, I think that Talents & Flaws - which are part of RMSS - hinder the RM play experience, by diluting what is one of its strongest features, namely, its DP-based character build system, and so I don't use them in my RM games.)I think it is not uncommon for RPGs to include rules aspects that don't serve the purpose of supporting play with that RPG. These are bad rules. The unhappy play experience that results is not the players' fault. In a game like RM, which self-consciously adopts a toolbox mentality and a corresponding sort of GM, those bad rules can be excised once discovered (in my experience at least players will co-operate in this). In D&D it is harder, I think, because of the sort of expectations about rules solidness that its players have.I like the idea of the GM coming into the equation as an action-by-action adjudicator. But (speaking for myself) my GMing time is becoming increasingly limited, and I would like to play a fantasy RPG that didn't require me to be a co-designer.</blockquote>

Verification