Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Bankuei, January 16, 2002, 03:16:02 AM
Quote from: BankueiPlayers are forced to record their characters abilities, whereas the GM is not. Players are looked down upon for cheating with dice, while the GM is expected to fudge. How can you share power when one group is assigned a serious level of rules to follow and the other is freed of them? The GM isn't even assigned different but equally restricting rules.
Quote from: RonI'm with Scott. "Confucius say, 'If game need house-rules, is broken game.'" [That's a quote from a friend, from a discussion back in 1994 or so about Magic.]
Quote from: RonThus the Three Precepts of The Window are "rules," which, in this case, have an identity-crisis with its resolution system "rules."
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI totally agree with you. My frustration arises from what is, essentially, shoddy workmanship that has cost me or anyone else money, and from the widespread distribution of such shoddiness. I also think that in many games that the "fix" is far more laborious and requires more session-to-session maintenance than in others, and those would be the games I'd call "fucked."
QuoteP.S. As for The Window, let's do another thread. Probably in the GNS forum, I'd think. Start it up as you see fit.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisIt seems like there's a formula much more likely to produce good GAMES (if not neccessarily good income) - make the "base document" a true Raw Material. Explain what your analysis and playtesting revealed about, e.g., "balancing" Classes, and let folks use that to make their own. Provide a real "build your own d20 game" toolkit. Economically, this might be absurd. Hell, the whole thing might be absurd.
Quote from: BankueiBack in the Sorcerer thread this exact topic of rules being used as an excuse for supplements [. . . ]
Quote from: BankueiIn this case, though, my specific interest is in the difference between having rules for the players, different or subset rules for the GM, and of course, the ability(granted within the game or the social contract) for one to be able to ignor the rules as opposed to the others.
Quote from: PaganiniIt sounds a lot like you're describing FUDGE or Epiphany. FUDGE has a fairly large following, so I wouldn't call it absurd. I actually prefer Epiphany, although it seems to have been less successful. Part of that may be that the rules are unclearly writen.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisYeah, Fudge is definetly a step in this direction. I don't know Epiphany - looks like time for a Google search . . .
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisGot you. I'd say that in THEORY, allowing different rules (and rules about how "serious" to take the rules) for player and GM is OK. The player and the GM can have different kinds of roles/activities within the game, so having different rules for different roles doesn't strike me as a fundamentally broken idea. In PRACTICE, the way general "GM can fudge - but not the players" rules have been implemented has tended to support the "control of everything" (including story creation) by the GM, and thus is bad for Narrativism (and probably other play preference).