Thanks for the heads up to Uncle Bear. All this game playing has left me a little out of the blogsphere/rss/webforums.
Personally, I am neither a fan of rules heavy or rules light. I prefer consistent and adaptable rules systems; one where the same mechanics can be used in different situations. As you mention this aids transparency.
A lot of theory is dull, and some of the language at The Forge shows that the people there don't have much of a background in literary or drama studies and so they keep on engaging in neologisms which confuse (and in some cases angers people).
I agree with you entirely on the "human touch" aspect, and the Pundit's comments on the matter were most dishonest (or perhaps just ignorant). The totality of much argument can be summarised as: The group (GM and players) have primary importance, but that doesn't mean the system has zero importance (which is what some actually said).
no subject
Thanks for the heads up to Uncle Bear. All this game playing has left me a little out of the blogsphere/rss/webforums.
Personally, I am neither a fan of rules heavy or rules light. I prefer consistent and adaptable rules systems; one where the same mechanics can be used in different situations. As you mention this aids transparency.
A lot of theory is dull, and some of the language at The Forge shows that the people there don't have much of a background in literary or drama studies and so they keep on engaging in neologisms which confuse (and in some cases angers people).
I agree with you entirely on the "human touch" aspect, and the Pundit's comments on the matter were most dishonest (or perhaps just ignorant). The totality of much argument can be summarised as: The group (GM and players) have primary importance, but that doesn't mean the system has zero importance (which is what some actually said).