Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5889706" data-attributes="member: 70707">My point is more that &quot;more GM fiat&quot; does not imply a rules-light system, in the way I usually see the term used.&nbsp; If you just meant a system without a lot of rules, sure.&nbsp; But &quot;rule-light&quot; doesn't usually just mean that.&nbsp; It means a system that gets a lot of mileage out of the rules.They often require the GM to map the world into the generic mechanics, but the mechanics themselves are well-defined.&nbsp; That's different from pure GM fiat, where the mechanics aren't defined.For example, in a simple D&amp;D game, underwater combat (if left without rules) might have the DM say &quot;you guys are at a -4 to attacks, but not the shark, because he's native to the ocean&quot;.In a rules-light game, each creature might have a certain number of Aspects, and one of the shark's Aspects might be &quot;apex predator in the seas&quot;, and an Aspect might grant certain bonuses.&nbsp; In this case, the mechanics of the game are used as written; they're just generic mechanics.Oh please.&nbsp; Taking someone at the plain English meaning of their words is not &quot;rules lawyering&quot;.&nbsp; And especially when we're not playing the game, arguing with the DM, but simply giving feedback.&nbsp; I, for one, hope the playtesters rules lawyer the hell out of the rules they see.&nbsp; Holding back constructive feedback is not helpful.&nbsp; Asking for clarity is highly constructive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5889706, member: 70707"] My point is more that "more GM fiat" does not imply a rules-light system, in the way I usually see the term used. If you just meant a system without a lot of rules, sure. But "rule-light" doesn't usually just mean that. It means a system that gets a lot of mileage out of the rules. They often require the GM to map the world into the generic mechanics, but the mechanics themselves are well-defined. That's different from pure GM fiat, where the mechanics aren't defined. For example, in a simple D&D game, underwater combat (if left without rules) might have the DM say "you guys are at a -4 to attacks, but not the shark, because he's native to the ocean". In a rules-light game, each creature might have a certain number of Aspects, and one of the shark's Aspects might be "apex predator in the seas", and an Aspect might grant certain bonuses. In this case, the mechanics of the game are used as written; they're just generic mechanics. Oh please. Taking someone at the plain English meaning of their words is not "rules lawyering". And especially when we're not playing the game, arguing with the DM, but simply giving feedback. I, for one, hope the playtesters rules lawyer the hell out of the rules they see. Holding back constructive feedback is not helpful. Asking for clarity is highly constructive. [/QUOTE]

Verification