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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8417361" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure, I think this is possible, for sure. I don't think it's a certainty, but I would agree with the general idea, and I'd say the more rules that a game has, the more likely this may be. But there are also rules that work just fine without limiting how the players interact with the fiction.I think it's something more games should do, or that they should present these ideas more overtly. Principles like this can do a lot of the heavy lifting in this area. "Don't be a weasel" is one for Blades in the Dark that would apply to the kinds of players you're discussing.I think the FKR and OSR spheres show that aesthetic is alive and well, not to mention the many other games that folks are tweaking and hacking to do something new or different. Go onto itch.io and you'll find so many DIY projects that it's overwhelming.Well I think it's about being able to ignore or ditch rules situationally as needed. So your two guards blocking the hall example.....it seems absurd given the situation, the GM can just say "you can pass them" or "you can pass them with a successful X check" or what have you. I think this is already the case, but I think presentation can matter quite a bit, and some of this has been lost at times, or is dismissed because of perception about how a game is supposed to play.I think it depends, honestly. If that's what works, sure. And I think that's likely true for some situations, but maybe not all. I think games can also benefit from constraining GM authority. But a lot of that will depend on what the goal of play is, and where the participants would like to see the split in authority.But you assume that players will always and absolutely behave one way, but then point out how GMs know their players better than anyone else. I see these being at odds, no? Unless there are differences from player to player? In which case, your monolithic take that they will always game the system seems lost. I personally find that trust goes both ways. Perhaps if a GM were able to trust his players more, he wouldn't need to worry about them always trying to subvert the rules? Your take seems to be that the players can't be trusted with the rules. What about the GM? Why can they be trusted so much? I'm struggling to understand why there's such a strong distinction between player and GM in this regard.Yeah, I get that's your take. I don't share it....but thankfully, I don't find it to be true in most of the games I've participated in. It can come up at times, sure, but never so much that I had to take such drastic measures. I think rules can be both visible to players and unobtrusive to the fiction.</blockquote>

Verification