Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2897648" data-attributes="member: 6777">IMO, traditional &quot;rules-lite&quot; games require a pretty high level of group trust, as fiat is generally a big part of the resolution process. Depending on the group this can be really good or disastrously bad.Not that complex games are inherently more immune, mind you. The real issue isn't so much &quot;heavy&quot;/&quot;lite&quot; as it is &quot;good&quot;/&quot;bad&quot;. E.g., both GURPS and HERO (I think we can agree these count as &quot;heavy&quot;) allow, RAW, a good degree of fiat on the part of the GM. If the group isn't on the same page in this regard, catastrophe can ensue.(I freakin' love HERO, but this is an admitted peeve of mine with the system.)OTOH, the dense-as-heck Spycraft 2.0 is actually very explicit about the role of the GM and the players. The whole fudging process is systematized in the Action Dice and Dramatic Scene mechanics, among others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2897648, member: 6777"] IMO, traditional "rules-lite" games require a pretty high level of group trust, as fiat is generally a big part of the resolution process. Depending on the group this can be really good or disastrously bad. Not that complex games are inherently more immune, mind you. The real issue isn't so much "heavy"/"lite" as it is "good"/"bad". E.g., both GURPS and HERO (I think we can agree these count as "heavy") allow, RAW, a good degree of fiat on the part of the GM. If the group isn't on the same page in this regard, catastrophe can ensue. (I freakin' love HERO, but this is an admitted peeve of mine with the system.) OTOH, the dense-as-heck [i]Spycraft 2.0[/i] is actually very explicit about the role of the GM and the players. The whole fudging process is systematized in the Action Dice and Dramatic Scene mechanics, among others. [/QUOTE]

Verification