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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Turjan" data-source="post: 2397965" data-attributes="member: 3477">This is more a problem of player/GM interaction. I hate arbitrary actions by GMs as much as you do. Rulings have to be consistent, whether it's a rules-light or a rules-heavy game. I agree with you that rules-light games are only suitable for a group of players and GM(s) who trust each other. Rules are there to make life easier for people who don't trust each other. The problem of accountability arises in all games. The summary of what you say is that rules-heavy games give the player the means to win an argument. If a GM tends to make "squidgy rulings", he'll do that whatever the rules are. I simply try to avoid "squidgy rulings".Perhaps, I should clarify what I mean with 'rules-light'. I'm no advocate of games that leave the outcome of conflicts completely to the whims of the GM. Even 'rules-light' games should have a decent and robust combat engine for me, and I definitely prefer dice resolution. Everything else is negotiable, anyway, regardless of the rules.I agree that fighters were boring in older versions of D&D. I never played any. Still, there are players who love that kind of class, and they are fine with descriptions of their deeds. By the way, there are 'rules-light' games that give you mechanical means to exert special combat manoeuvres, like HeroQuest. Although I'm not completely convinced that HeroQuest qualifies as 'rules-light'. At least, it's very complicated to wrap your mind around if you come from D&D.It's a fallacy with a certain sort of players. Anyway, I don't think our opinions are that far apart regarding this particular point. The games I refer to just have a reduced set of numbers to fall back on for solving particular situations. These are still numbers to fall back on, you just use more often the same numbers for similar tasks.</blockquote>

Verification