Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5722011" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there is something in what you say (can't XP you yet either!).For my part, I like rules that are clear in how they are meant to work and what they are meant to achieve.In the case of a game like Rolemaster, with which I have most of my GMing experience, it's clear that the action resolution rules are meant to produce a rich experience in which the unfolding mechanics express the underlying causal logic of the gameworld. This makes it clear to me how to use them, and how - when they run out - I should supplement them: look for the nearest defined mechanic, and tweak it on the fly to produce an adequate model of the novel ingame situation.In the case of 4e, I also find the rules pretty clear: they are meant to reliably provide an experience of heroic fantasy. Ingame processes are kept lose and flexible, subject to genre rather than mechanical constraints, but the mechanics are very tight in the way the set the outcomes, and the parameters within which the fictional path that leads to those outcomes can be narrated. (Come and Get It: very narrow parameters. Skill challenges: more flexible parameters, but the fiction must still fit with the outcome of a given skill check.)4e is definitely an example of your B: tight rules that give players a clear sense of the outcomes their PCs can achieve. Genre is a constraint on narration.Rolemaster's rules are not really an example of your A - they are not loose guidelines or GM fiat - but they work differently from 4e. Genre is a constraint on the mechanics, and narration is a function of mechanics (because mechanics model ingame processes).I find RM harder to GM, because - especially at high levels - the gonzo possibilities of the genre put a heavy burden on the group (with the GM taking the lead) to come up with mechanics that will (i) be faithful to the genre, in the way they model the gameworld, and (ii) are practical and fun in play. I think RQ is probably a better example of this approach to play, because it keeps the scope of the game closer to the range of situations its mechanics can model out of the box.For gonzo fantasy, I am finding the 4e approach works well. And I don't think it's a surprise that in some ways it draws so obviously on games like HeroWars/Quest, which also use a simple "otucomes first, narration second" approach to produce a mechanic that scales over the full range of action resolution for gonzo fantasy.Anyway, you're certainly right that I'm not a big fan of loose mechanics that turn into GM fiat and ad hoc manipulation of the mechanics to fit, or to create, the story. Which is the vibe I get from your option A.</blockquote>

Verification