Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7570230" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I'd agree with both [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] and&nbsp; [MENTION=1013]Flexor the Mighty![/MENTION]. I mean, when I was young, I got into game complexity a lot. But I think it was barking up the wrong tree from the goals of play for which I come to an rpg. I'm perfectly happy to play a complicated war or battle game like SFB, even. I think there's definitely a place for complicated rules for competitive environments. However, that's the long way around for a game that's trying to create an interesting story. (And not all gamers come to rpgs for that purpose, either.) And honestly, that's why I come to play an rpg. I think, in a historical sense, a more fundamental problem is that traditional rules are not geared towards &quot;story&quot; at all, so much as they are geared toward a very loosely-drawn idea of &quot;simulation&quot; of a fantasy world.* So, this leads to &quot;fudging&quot; rolls and rules. I mean, you can't have the people who were prophesied to save the world in episode 1 get eaten by a randomly encountered Troll in episode 3....so, if I'm going to be fudging rolls, why have all these details in the first place? That being said. A simple ruleset does not immediately engender a good story game. Most of the &quot;rules light&quot; games out there are just a stripped-down traditional rpg system with a bit of handwavium thrown in to make up for all the rules and lists of gear that they got rid of. Which, to be fair, IME is perfectly adequate to play a traditional rpg in the style I like. But it doesn't inherently position you for creating a good story. The PCs could still wander around aimlessly never closing plot loops, etc.&nbsp; I'm much more intriqued nowadays by games like Fiasco and Blades in the Dark, which cleanly focus on a particular type of story. And I wouldn't call Blades rules-light.*and a very odd one at that, given some of the gamist premises of dungeon-crawling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7570230, member: 6688937"] I'd agree with both [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1013]Flexor the Mighty![/MENTION]. I mean, when I was young, I got into game complexity a lot. But I think it was barking up the wrong tree from the goals of play for which I come to an rpg. I'm perfectly happy to play a complicated war or battle game like SFB, even. I think there's definitely a place for complicated rules for competitive environments. However, that's the long way around for a game that's trying to create an interesting story. (And not all gamers come to rpgs for that purpose, either.) And honestly, that's why I come to play an rpg. I think, in a historical sense, a more fundamental problem is that traditional rules are not geared towards "story" at all, so much as they are geared toward a very loosely-drawn idea of "simulation" of a fantasy world.* So, this leads to "fudging" rolls and rules. I mean, you can't have the people who were prophesied to save the world in episode 1 get eaten by a randomly encountered Troll in episode 3....so, if I'm going to be fudging rolls, why have all these details in the first place? That being said. A simple ruleset does not immediately engender a good story game. Most of the "rules light" games out there are just a stripped-down traditional rpg system with a bit of handwavium thrown in to make up for all the rules and lists of gear that they got rid of. Which, to be fair, IME is perfectly adequate to play a traditional rpg in the style I like. But it doesn't inherently position you for creating a good story. The PCs could still wander around aimlessly never closing plot loops, etc. I'm much more intriqued nowadays by games like Fiasco and Blades in the Dark, which cleanly focus on a particular type of story. And I wouldn't call Blades rules-light. *and a very odd one at that, given some of the gamist premises of dungeon-crawling. [/QUOTE]

Verification