Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PRAdams" data-source="post: 8157524" data-attributes="member: 6978526">I''m referring to Fate specifically (where aspects are the hammer and everything becomes a nail to be driven in by the aspect). However, the problem with, say, John Carter could be the same if the GM wanted to go that way. The notion that you don't need skills because...you're already competent in some set of skills (but go ahead and write down a handful if that'll help you) is just lazy.If you like systems that involve a lot of handwaving, that's fine. It's a matter of taste. I find them uninteresting. There's a massive gulf between, say, Conan and John Carter 2d20. You could make a much less crunchy version of Conan if you want a high-speed John Carter game without going to the level they did with the design. They chose otherwise, so I've passed on buying anything outside of the core rulebook. For that same reason, I'll pass on Dune and other systems that are too scaled down for my taste.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PRAdams, post: 8157524, member: 6978526"] I''m referring to Fate specifically (where aspects are the hammer and everything becomes a nail to be driven in by the aspect). However, the problem with, say, John Carter could be the same if the GM wanted to go that way. The notion that you don't need skills because...you're already competent in some set of skills (but go ahead and write down a handful if that'll help you) is just lazy. If you like systems that involve a lot of handwaving, that's fine. It's a matter of taste. I find them uninteresting. There's a massive gulf between, say, Conan and John Carter 2d20. You could make a much less crunchy version of Conan if you want a high-speed John Carter game without going to the level they did with the design. They chose otherwise, so I've passed on buying anything outside of the core rulebook. For that same reason, I'll pass on Dune and other systems that are too scaled down for my taste. [/QUOTE]

Verification