Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3704453" data-attributes="member: 6777">Thing is, in the systems I'm talking about the players get to set the table, too. A concrete example would be players in Spirit of the Century tagging Aspects on a scene, such as using Academics to make a declaration that, say, the stalagmites the NPCs are standing next to are formed of highly volatile ore that could detonate at any moment.The focus on combat/death in this discussion is also tangential; in a game like Breaking the Ice, there are no rules for combat/death. It's not what the game is about, and thus it will never come up.We've also drifted away from the original point (of the tangent, at least), i.e., that system matters. &quot;System&quot; being inclusive of all procedures used by the group, whether documented or not. Ergo, if you affirm that &quot;Rule 0&quot; counts as &quot;system,&quot; then it obviously does matter, given that it lets the GM act in the way you describe. Likewise, if an RPG lays out a specific social contract, as in the examples I provided, then Rule 0 is not going to be an allowed procedure, and thus the GM can't act in the way you describe.Which still leaves aside the fact that players will act differently in a game where, e.g., their PCs can bounce bullets off their chests than in one where they can step on a nail and die from infection. Likewise in one where they have narrative input and one in which they do not.And if you really buy into the idea that system doesn't matter, then recommending a particular RPG for, say, stone age fantasy, is completely moot. Instead, you should be recommending a specific GM. &quot;Joe is really good with primitive settings.&quot;Which, of course, is pretty silly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3704453, member: 6777"] Thing is, in the systems I'm talking about [I]the players get to set the table, too.[/I] A concrete example would be players in [I]Spirit of the Century[/I] tagging Aspects on a scene, such as using Academics to make a declaration that, say, the stalagmites the NPCs are standing next to are formed of highly volatile ore that could detonate at any moment. The focus on combat/death in this discussion is also tangential; in a game like [i]Breaking the Ice[/i], there are no rules for combat/death. It's not what the game is about, and thus it will never come up. We've also drifted away from the original point (of the tangent, at least), i.e., that system matters. "System" being inclusive of all procedures used by the group, whether documented or not. Ergo, if you affirm that "Rule 0" counts as "system," then it obviously does matter, given that it lets the GM act in the way you describe. Likewise, if an RPG lays out a specific social contract, as in the examples I provided, then Rule 0 is not going to be an allowed procedure, and thus the GM [i]can't[/i] act in the way you describe. Which still leaves aside the fact that players will act differently in a game where, e.g., their PCs can bounce bullets off their chests than in one where they can step on a nail and die from infection. Likewise in one where they have narrative input and one in which they do not. And if you really buy into the idea that system doesn't matter, then recommending a particular RPG for, say, stone age fantasy, is completely moot. Instead, you should be recommending a specific GM. "Joe is really good with primitive settings." Which, of course, is pretty silly. [/QUOTE]

Verification