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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2415833" data-attributes="member: 23012">In the campaign that we played together, the most significant things that the PCs did that altered the course of the campaign had *nothing* to do with the game's rules.  *Nothing.*Rather, the PCs had, roughly, three possible courses of action over the course of the campaign.  They could have: (a.) pursued the trail of the 'Cult' that they discovered; (b.) explore the ruins of the Amber Savants; and (c.) pursue their 'personal quests'.I had prepared the campaign to cover all three possibilities.  The PCs chose to focus on (a.), and I responded to that choice in subsequent sessions.I thought there were *plenty* of interesting options in our campaign (or at least I tried to make sure there was).  Moreover, the PCs determined the outcome of the campaign.Nothing was 'predetermined' by me as GM.  None of the campaign's most significant options had to do with the 'rules'.I don't know what this means, or to whom you are replying.Yes, and not wanting "outcome and path pre-determined" has *nothing* to do with the rules -- at least IME as a GM.Like I just stated above, in our campaign the outcome was *not* pre-determined.  Its outcome was determined by the *decisions* of the PCs.  This would have been the case had we been using GURPS, C&C, True20, or whatever, instead of 3e.*Nothing* in rules light/medium games prevent this kind of collaboration.  In fact, IME, rules light/medium games *encourage* this kind of collaboration.  You're misremembering what happened.  I went to great pains to emphasize that I would *rewrite* the biographies (in part or in whole) if you wished.Steve wanted to add a whole new dimension to his bio -- the 'one horn helmet' thing.  I added it.And Brian in fact wrote the rough draft of his bio -- I revised it slightly to fit into the campaign setting.The fact that you *chose* not to revise or alter the draft that I gave you does not mean that you did not have the option.  Others did exercise that option.I disagee.  It is simply a more *general* game.  Also, it does not follow that rules light/medium games *necessarily* mean that players have less options.  I think you are unfairly generalizing on the basis of C&C alone here.  You really should take a look at True20, for example.  (It is close to d20, so it should be easy to grasp.)IME rule lights/medium games are both easier and funner to GM.  They certainly have a *faster* pace.  (Although I have some experience as a GM -- newbies may not feel as comfortable with such games.)My recollection is quite different.  I remember you being the one player *most* opposed to trying C&C.  (Actually, you were the *only* player opposed to C&C.)I am sure Ryan is "accurately reporting his findings".  That doesn't change the fact that I think his findings are bunk.  For one thing, he never specified what he meant by a 'rules light' game.  In fact, nothing about the games used in the study have been mentioned.  Moreover, in his later comments, he noted that the problems he observed primarily had to do with gamers who did *not* normally game together.  That caveat alone renders his study inapplicable to most gaming groups.More generally, I do not doubt that gamers in the grip of a certain paradigm might find rules light/medium games difficult to play.  Big deal.  Those aren't the gamers I generally play with (nor, I would guess, the majority of other gamers who prefer rules light/medium games).</blockquote>

Verification