Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5353897" data-attributes="member: 87792">I disagree.&nbsp; To me not knowing the basic rules is akin to not understanding the rules of physics in the world.&nbsp; But I'm at one end of the spectrum here.&nbsp;&nbsp;Add in1b) I make my own estimates about whether the proposition is valid influenced by both the world as we've seen it and the rules of the game.&nbsp;&nbsp;And you encourage people to say &quot;I want to GM&quot; by making a system that's nice to GM - low prep time, easy to make evocative, minimal chance of being utterly derailed or a serious arms race.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's not a rules light system.&nbsp; That's an incomplete and poorly designed rules-heavy system masquerading as rules light.&nbsp; A rules light system is something like Dread where the rules go as follows:&nbsp;1&nbsp; Is what's being tried remotely plausible.&nbsp; If no, stop.&nbsp; If it involves god-moding, ask them to rephrase.2: Is what's being tried challenging?&nbsp; If no, they succeed.3: Name a difficulty in number of blocks needed for them to do what they are trying.&nbsp; Tell them to pull that many blocks.&nbsp; If they succeed, they succeed.&nbsp; If they bottle, they bottle.&nbsp; If they knock the tower over they die.Neither vague nor difficult to apply other than working out how many blocks for a given action.&nbsp; And covers almost every situation that might come up.&nbsp;&nbsp;You seem to be working under the assumption that D&amp;D was a rules light system.&nbsp; That it never was.&nbsp; The approach was always rules heavy and inelegant.&nbsp;&nbsp;That they take more conceptual work and that you can't do very much in terms of expansions being two more.&nbsp; I have Dread.&nbsp; I can't see how they can sell me a second book.&nbsp; So it's not worth a big company marketing them.&nbsp;You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good.&nbsp;&nbsp;*eyeroll*&nbsp;The situation is similar.&nbsp; It would be d20+dex.&nbsp; But the situation isn't the same.&nbsp; 16 need not be a success this time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5353897, member: 87792"] I disagree. To me not knowing the basic rules is akin to not understanding the rules of physics in the world. But I'm at one end of the spectrum here. Add in 1b) I make my own estimates about whether the proposition is valid influenced by both the world as we've seen it and the rules of the game. And you encourage people to say "I want to GM" by making a system that's nice to GM - low prep time, easy to make evocative, minimal chance of being utterly derailed or a serious arms race. That's not a rules light system. That's an incomplete and poorly designed rules-heavy system masquerading as rules light. A rules light system is something like Dread where the rules go as follows: 1 Is what's being tried remotely plausible. If no, stop. If it involves god-moding, ask them to rephrase. 2: Is what's being tried challenging? If no, they succeed. 3: Name a difficulty in number of blocks needed for them to do what they are trying. Tell them to pull that many blocks. If they succeed, they succeed. If they bottle, they bottle. If they knock the tower over they die. Neither vague nor difficult to apply other than working out how many blocks for a given action. And covers almost every situation that might come up. You seem to be working under the assumption that D&D was a rules light system. That it never was. The approach was always rules heavy and inelegant. That they take more conceptual work and that you can't do very much in terms of expansions being two more. I have Dread. I can't see how they can sell me a second book. So it's not worth a big company marketing them. You seem to be working under the assumption that versatility automatically makes a system good. *eyeroll* The situation is similar. It would be d20+dex. But the situation isn't the same. 16 need not be a success this time. [/QUOTE]

Verification