Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2893518" data-attributes="member: 6777">Wik, I want to commend you. That you recognized the concept of systems facilitating some types of play better than others is very refreshing to see. You realized what it was you wanted out of your games, and grabbed a system that fit those needs. Kudos to you and your players!Okay, now here I'm going to give you some flak. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />All the min-maxing and rules-focusing your group was doing was roleplaying.It may not have been the kind of roleplaying that you enjoy most, but it was roleplaying. Maybe more tactical, more rule-focused, more about mastery, but it's roleplaying nonetheless.Ergo, assertions about one system encouraging roleplaying more than another are, IMO, bogus. All RPGs, by definition, invovle roleplaying. The question is, which ones best facilitate the kind of roleplaying you enjoy? (Or, at least, enjoy right now.)You were wise enough to realize that D&amp;D wasn't meeting your needs, so you found a system that better served them. You ROCK.But let me offer myself as a counter-example.I play D&amp;D3.5 and HERO, and I play them pretty rules-rigorously. I also love crunchy games like Spycraft 2.0 and Burning Wheel. I have never found their complexity to be an impediment to &quot;roleplaying&quot; in the sense you and others are using it here, i.e., &quot;immersion&quot; and &quot;story&quot;. I enjoy the detail and the tactical options, too.If anything, I've found traditional &quot;lite&quot; systems to be unsaitsfying. When I've run them, they've felt very &quot;floaty&quot; to me. I feel like I'm &quot;just making stuff up,&quot; and I don't like that. I.e., I'm not big on heavy GM fiat, even when I'm the GM.Ergo, for me, it's the &quot;lite&quot; systems that get in the way.(I will distinguish &quot;lite&quot; from &quot;simple,&quot; though. I like RPGs such as Dogs in the Vineyard and HeropQuest. I would not call them &quot;lite&quot; in the traditional sense, though.)Really, the bggest impediments I've seen in my gaming (and in your OP), are players. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Having players (this includes the GM) who are not on the same page about what they want, or who want something that the system being used can't provide is, IME, a sure-fire recipe for disaster. In my Top 10 Impediments list, &quot;players&quot; would be #1, and &quot;system&quot; would be #409. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So... how have the players who were min-maxing and rules-focused taken to using D6? Does everyone seem to be having fun?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2893518, member: 6777"] Wik, I want to commend you. That you recognized the concept of systems facilitating some types of play better than others is very refreshing to see. You realized what it was you wanted out of your games, and grabbed a system that fit those needs. Kudos to you and your players! Okay, now here I'm going to give you some flak. :) All the min-maxing and rules-focusing your group was doing [I]was[/I] roleplaying. It may not have been the kind of roleplaying that you enjoy most, but it [i]was[/i] roleplaying. Maybe more tactical, more rule-focused, more about mastery, but it's roleplaying nonetheless. Ergo, assertions about one system encouraging [i]roleplaying[/i] more than another are, IMO, bogus. All RPGs, by definition, invovle roleplaying. The question is, which ones best facilitate the kind of roleplaying you enjoy? (Or, at least, enjoy right now.) You were wise enough to realize that D&D wasn't meeting your needs, so you found a system that better served them. You [B]ROCK[/B]. But let me offer myself as a counter-example. I play D&D3.5 and HERO, and I play them pretty rules-rigorously. I also love crunchy games like [i]Spycraft 2.0[/i] and [i]Burning Wheel[/i]. I have [I]never[/I] found their complexity to be an impediment to "roleplaying" in the sense you and others are using it here, i.e., "immersion" and "story". I enjoy the detail and the tactical options, too. If anything, I've found traditional "lite" systems to be unsaitsfying. When I've run them, they've felt very "floaty" to me. I feel like I'm "just making stuff up," and I don't like that. I.e., I'm not big on heavy GM fiat, even when I'm the GM. Ergo, for me, it's the "lite" systems that get in the way. (I will distinguish "lite" from "simple," though. I like RPGs such as [i]Dogs in the Vineyard[/i] and [i]HeropQuest[/i]. I would not call them "lite" in the traditional sense, though.) Really, the bggest impediments I've seen in my gaming (and in your OP), are [i]players[/i]. :) Having players (this includes the GM) who are not on the same page about what they want, or who want something that the system being used can't provide is, IME, a sure-fire recipe for disaster. In my Top 10 Impediments list, "players" would be #1, and "system" would be #409. :) So... how have the players who were min-maxing and rules-focused taken to using D6? Does everyone seem to be having fun? [/QUOTE]

Verification