Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RenleyRenfield" data-source="post: 9770735" data-attributes="member: 7044197">No, you are incorrect.&nbsp;&nbsp; Synnibarr has no such GM limiting mechanic.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fate (the GM) literally has a sentence that says &quot;Fate has absolute control over the roll, and interpretation of the rules.&quot; at most, players can challenge a GM if they think the GM was not using the rules.&nbsp; That is ENTIRELY not the same thing as &quot;The system makes the ruling, not the GM&quot;.&nbsp; See PBTA moves for reference. As I stated earlier = &quot;What makes a modern mechanic is that its part of the majority of design and mechanic principles now&quot;.&nbsp; Most every game made since 2018 is now incorporating success with complications, fail forward, no failed rolls (see Draw Steel), and a very large number of GM no-roll games - where the GM no longer even rolls dice.&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, some of these things were bits and bobs in the past, but none of them were the standard of play, nor were they common.&nbsp; By such a wide margin that some of those games can't even be found anymore, let along still have a market impact. Heck, just the idea of Player Agency is a term designers and mechanics are striving for and to define, which was not part of the vernacular or process in 1992 across any major group. GURPS and Vampire the Masquerade is good proof of that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Think also about the push for typical concepts &quot;This game is deadly&quot; = again by a wide margin - very few new players want this.&nbsp; It is seen in the last game polls that most all new players voted overwhelmingly that they don't like super deadly systems.&nbsp; Yet that was a common design practice in 1992.&nbsp; So its a &quot;Modern mechanic to make characters far more survivable and powerful&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a modern push, a modern goal by the industry overall.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where as in 1992, this would have been greatly reversed, because the old goal was to make games lethal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RenleyRenfield, post: 9770735, member: 7044197"] No, you are incorrect. Synnibarr has no such GM limiting mechanic. Fate (the GM) literally has a sentence that says "Fate has absolute control over the roll, and interpretation of the rules." at most, players can challenge a GM if they think the GM was not using the rules. That is ENTIRELY not the same thing as "The system makes the [I]ruling[/I], not the GM". See PBTA moves for reference. As I stated earlier = [I]"What makes a [B]modern mechanic [/B]is that its part of the majority of design and mechanic principles now[/I]". Most every game made since 2018 is now incorporating success with complications, fail forward, no failed rolls (see Draw Steel), and a very large number of GM no-roll games - where the GM no longer even rolls dice. Again, some of these things were bits and bobs in the past, but none of them were the standard of play, nor were they common. By [I]such a wide margin[/I] that some of those games can't even be found anymore, let along still have a market impact. Heck, just the idea of Player Agency is a term designers and mechanics are striving for and to define, which was not part of the vernacular or process in 1992 across any major group. GURPS and Vampire the Masquerade is good proof of that. Think also about the push for typical concepts "This game is deadly" = again by a wide margin - very few new players want this. It is seen in the last game polls that most all new players voted overwhelmingly that they don't like super deadly systems. Yet that was a common design practice in 1992. So its a "[B]Modern mechanic to make characters far more survivable and powerful[/B]". This is a modern push, a [B]modern goal by the industry overall[/B]. Where as in 1992, this would have been greatly reversed, because [B]the old goal was to make games letha[/B]l. [/QUOTE]

Verification