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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8691040" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'm glad you qualified that, as I used to play with someone who designed security systems (as in, the layout and triggering, not the technological component) for a living.  Let's just say playing Shadowrun with him was enlightening. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Its also why I argue a set of rules for commonly handled situations are a virtue even if they aren't entirely accurate, as long as they don't completely break expectations (though you can always have the situation where expectations are so far from reality, that paradoxically a realistic set of rules about something will do that) is better than having a GM or even the collective group decision handle it--because there may be no common agreement about how some things actually work, and that can make making decisions almost impossible.  With a set of rules, you at least know more or less how the damned situation will  be resolved most of the time.I think its a deeper rabbit-hole than I want to go down, but I'll say a number of things about how it handles success and failure in terms of the necessity of burning attribute points to do it are very far away away from virtually any older game I'm familiar with; the closest you get was TFT's essentially having mages burn hit points to cast spells, and I don't think its a coincidence that was not only not imitated by others, it wasn't even carried through to its descendent GURPS.  So I think you're underestimating what an odd offshoot it is in some important ways.</blockquote>

Verification