Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4272622" data-attributes="member: 42582">OK. So is there no difference, then, between playing RQ, playing RM, playing 3E, playing HeroWars or playing AD&amp;D, because they all have a GM who can adjudicate actions that the rules don't otherwise cover, and they all have some text (more-or-less facile as the case may be) telling the GM to do this?Classic Traveller (especially when one includes Book 7:Merchant Prince) has fairly extensive rules for trading. Rolemaster also has such rules - less extensive, but they are there in Character and Campaign Law (and amplified in ...&amp; a 10' pole). AD&amp;D 1st edition has none beyond some suggested prices of certain tradeable items in the DMG. Tunnels and Trolls 5th edition has none (the price lists only cover weapons, armour and similar &quot;adventuring items&quot;).Are you asserting that all these games nevertheless equally satisfy your &quot;freedom principle&quot; in respect of players who want their PCs to become merchants? Are you asserting that if players wanted to play a trading RPG game there would be nothing to choose between AD&amp;D, RM, Traveller or any other GM-adjudicated RPG?If that is what you are asserting, I find it bizarre. On the other hand, if you accept that different games are better or worse at facilitating different sorts of activities by the PCs, then I think you are pretty close to conceding that the &quot;freedom principle&quot; isn't satisfied - because the difference between &quot;doesn't handle it well&quot; and &quot;doesn't handle it&quot; is a pretty thin one. (And &quot;handles it well with houserules&quot; is really just the same as &quot;doesn't handle it&quot; conjoined with &quot;I'm an amateur game designer&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4272622, member: 42582"] OK. So is there no difference, then, between playing RQ, playing RM, playing 3E, playing HeroWars or playing AD&D, because they all have a GM who can adjudicate actions that the rules don't otherwise cover, and they all have some text (more-or-less facile as the case may be) telling the GM to do this? Classic Traveller (especially when one includes Book 7:Merchant Prince) has fairly extensive rules for trading. Rolemaster also has such rules - less extensive, but they are there in Character and Campaign Law (and amplified in ...& a 10' pole). AD&D 1st edition has none beyond some suggested prices of certain tradeable items in the DMG. Tunnels and Trolls 5th edition has none (the price lists only cover weapons, armour and similar "adventuring items"). Are you asserting that all these games nevertheless equally satisfy your "freedom principle" in respect of players who want their PCs to become merchants? Are you asserting that if players wanted to play a trading RPG game there would be nothing to choose between AD&D, RM, Traveller or any other GM-adjudicated RPG? If that is what you are asserting, I find it bizarre. On the other hand, if you accept that different games are better or worse at facilitating different sorts of activities by the PCs, then I think you are pretty close to conceding that the "freedom principle" isn't satisfied - because the difference between "doesn't handle it well" and "doesn't handle it" is a pretty thin one. (And "handles it well with houserules" is really just the same as "doesn't handle it" conjoined with "I'm an amateur game designer".) [/QUOTE]

Verification