Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arilyn" data-source="post: 7769661" data-attributes="member: 6816042">I think the dice pool rpg lewpuls is talking about might be a FFG game, either Star Wars or Genesys, where the symbols on the dice act as a springboard for the narrative. This lacks the precision lewpuls talks about, but then he says that's okay for a rpg, so not sure if he's criticizing the dice pool game or not?The idea that in fuzzier, less precise rulesets in rpgs, the GM is more God than arbiter is a problematic claim. Technically, I guess? The GM is making more independent decisions away from the dice. Mechanics are broader, and are used for more situations, as games get away from individual rules for a variety of situations. On the other hand, having a mountain of rules, in hopes of simulating reality, has not worked. Aftermath, Rolemaster, Bushido, had some good ideas, but designers realized that too many fiddly bits actually made things slow down so much, reality was lost. The other problem is that the role of GM in the lighter games, and even in a lot of the crunchier games, is neither neutral arbiter or god. The GM now often serves as guide, a fan of the players, but one who wants to still challenge them, and even let them go crazy or die, depending on the system. There is still enough rules to avoid being a pure storyteller, but there is collaboration between players and GMs. So, I don't think you can just use precision of rules as guide for how the GM behaves, without looking at the changing role of GMs over the past many years.Overall, I'm not sure if this article is just saying you need more precision in board games because no GM, but less in rpgs? But then, he seems to say rpgs benefit from more precision too. Then it ends with, all depends. Can't argue with that, I guess.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arilyn, post: 7769661, member: 6816042"] I think the dice pool rpg lewpuls is talking about might be a FFG game, either Star Wars or Genesys, where the symbols on the dice act as a springboard for the narrative. This lacks the precision lewpuls talks about, but then he says that's okay for a rpg, so not sure if he's criticizing the dice pool game or not? The idea that in fuzzier, less precise rulesets in rpgs, the GM is more God than arbiter is a problematic claim. Technically, I guess? The GM is making more independent decisions away from the dice. Mechanics are broader, and are used for more situations, as games get away from individual rules for a variety of situations. On the other hand, having a mountain of rules, in hopes of simulating reality, has not worked. Aftermath, Rolemaster, Bushido, had some good ideas, but designers realized that too many fiddly bits actually made things slow down so much, reality was lost. The other problem is that the role of GM in the lighter games, and even in a lot of the crunchier games, is neither neutral arbiter or god. The GM now often serves as guide, a fan of the players, but one who wants to still challenge them, and even let them go crazy or die, depending on the system. There is still enough rules to avoid being a pure storyteller, but there is collaboration between players and GMs. So, I don't think you can just use precision of rules as guide for how the GM behaves, without looking at the changing role of GMs over the past many years. Overall, I'm not sure if this article is just saying you need more precision in board games because no GM, but less in rpgs? But then, he seems to say rpgs benefit from more precision too. Then it ends with, all depends. Can't argue with that, I guess. [/QUOTE]

Verification