Quote from: flyingmiceIn In Harm's Way: Aces in Spades I have rules for aeroplanes catching fire. I also have rules for things which come up once a year, like generating an aerodrome. Does that make me Neanderthal Designer of the Month? Do I get a prize?

-clash

The Caveman awards? For the best traditional indie game? Heh. It should come with a little statue.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoThe Caveman awards? For the best traditional indie game? Heh. It should come with a little statue.

-Marco

"Trad Roleplaying Design. So easy, a caveman could do it!"

Maybe we could get Geico to sponsor it! They sponsor everything else!

I think the award should be a rock...

-clash

Added: We should do it! I'll put up IHW:Aces in Spades against JAGS Revised! I know how to lose gracefully!

Quote from: Elliot WilenDesigners did look at this, saw it led to a mess, difficult to communicate, and tried to work up rules for everything. GURPS is one of the biggest examples. I don't think they succeeded, though: people still have to come up with spot rules and modifications. It's just that (at least with GURPS 3e) they thought they had to digest a huge number of rules before they could start play.

And here, we disagree -- GURPS is a *success* -- one of damn few in the world of games.

That's because GURPS gets the philosophy right: the art in RPG's takes place at the table. Closed spheres, however elegant, are more limited pallets for the people who (in the end) matter: the players.

GURPS is one of the clearest expressions of this principle and it's relative success in the market-place without either a massive popular footprint (D&D) or a setting / vibe that really clicked (Vampire) is, I think, vindication of the value of it's design. D20 is another.

And here's the thing: If I *want* to play bad ass mormons who go around judging your fun, or dark-and-deadly sorcerers who wonder, "what would *I* do for power," GURPS works just fine -- it fulfills it's promise spectacularly and demonstrates value of system divorced and indepenent of setting (although with intersections to provide setting-specific mechanics).

My prediction: In 100 years, no one will even think of making a game without drowning or falling rules, and wonder why it was ever in question.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor my part, those GURPS going-without-sleep rules, I'd be thrilled to play a survival game where those all came into play. One of my most enjoyable sessions ever was when we played out the recruit course scenario in Infinite Worlds, a team of recruits dropped out in the ice, had to make their way a couple of hundred kilometres home. I enjoyed it because getting everyone through in one piece taxed my imagination, and my personal and character knowledge of these things to the limit.

The GM didn't use those rules because like most GURPS GMs, he didn't know them all. But I'd have loved it if he did.

So me - I'd be delighted to play with all those rules kickin' in. But you know, most gamers would hate it.

This, right here, is all the vindication I think those rules would ever need -- if you'd have loved it, you could have asked the GM to use them.

They're not that complicated; they're not that much overhead...

And I suspect that if you like something others do too -- in this thread already, two of your assumptions of what rules "never get used" have been wrong. Maybe you're wrong about this as well?

I think those rules *do* get used. I think gamers *do* love them. I think the idea that they're in the rules books because designers who haven't given design any thought put them in because they were some other game is simply wrong.

But I can tell you this: if you're arguing against those rules from a standpoint of being someone who would love it if they're in the game, then I'm more convinced than ever that these rules have value and deserve a place in the taxonomy.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.And here, we disagree -- GURPS is a *success* -- one of damn few in the world of games.

No, what I meant, primarily, is that for all its effort, GURPS didn't succeed in having a rule for everything. E.g., unless I'm mistaken, it lacks a dropped lantern table. But that's okay: it's an impossible spec anyway, and GURPS is still a descriptive, extensible system--if a player "does something" in the game that isn't covered by the rules as written, you can either make up a new rule or let the GM make a final ruling that respects the unique qualities of the situation.

Secondarily, though, I think that GURPS has a drag on its appeal (at least GURPS 3e did) because its diffuseness doesn't provide a core story for people to latch onto and just play. In other words I'd compare it to the large, unwieldy cloth.

I do think that D&D owes a lot of its success to the fact that it provides a solid core story, but doesn't (at least pre-3e) proscribe other applications and extensions to the game. By contrast, the typical Forge game also has a core story but it doesn't really offer a way of extending it--most of the time, if you wander off the reservation, you can describe all sorts of details but they have no significant effect, in game system terms.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo, what I meant, primarily, is that for all its effort, GURPS didn't succeed in having a rule for everything. E.g., unless I'm mistaken, it lacks a dropped lantern table. But that's okay: it's an impossible spec anyway, and GURPS is still a descriptive, extensible system--if a player "does something" in the game that isn't covered by the rules as written, you can either make up a new rule or let the GM make a final ruling that respects the unique qualities of the situation.

Secondarily, though, I think that GURPS has a drag on its appeal (at least GURPS 3e did) because its diffuseness doesn't provide a core story for people to latch onto and just play. In other words I'd compare it to the large, unwieldy cloth.

I do think that D&D owes a lot of its success to the fact that it provides a solid core story, but doesn't (at least pre-3e) proscribe other applications and extensions to the game. By contrast, the typical Forge game also has a core story but it doesn't really offer a way of extending it--most of the time, if you wander off the reservation, you can describe all sorts of details but they have no significant effect, in game system terms.

Okay, I follow -- right; no rule for everything... but I don't think that was ever actually a goal of the GURPS authors (I can see how you'd reasonably infer something like that, but I don't think it's part of the "GURPS Spec" -- even in the abstract)

This probably comes as no surprise but for me the open nature of the system is a huge bonus.

My games almost never take place in the same tone or genre -- even my D&D games move fluidly between adventure, horror, comedy, intrigue, etc. They do now and they did in AD&D (which is why I've always been amazed that some people think the system only does dungeon crawls).

I guess "unwieldy" is in the eye of the beholder (as if I needed any more evidence that milages do, indeed, varry)

Cheers,
-E.

-E:

I just want clarification on something. I don't have a horse in the 'universal resolution system' approach vs. 'table for everything' approach. But I am curious as to whether the former also counts as providing 'drowning and falling' rules in your view. If a game system can handle translation of imaginary content into its resolution mechanics in the general case, is that good enough, or do you actually literally want separate rules for every possible situation? (Or some approximation thereto?)

Because I think if so a lot of the argument here evaporates. I mean, if 'providing drowning and falling rules' amounts to 'providing guidelines for use of a universal resolution mechanic,' than even mildly house-ruled versions of things like Fudge and the Window are going to count by your criteria. (As, I'd add, would Sorcerer, and some other games written by authors affiliated with the Forge.)

I suppose in that case you're still ruling out some things as unsatisfactory designs, like Wushu or My Life with Master. Personally, I think that this is about as nutty a criterion for game design as could be imagined, but I'd like to at least understand what you're saying here.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about mechanics dictating who wins arguments or emotional reactions where PCs and NPCs are equally subject to those mechanics?

I actually do hate GURPS, but not for any highblown design reason: I hate it for not being an improved version of The Fantasy Trip, which was my favorite RPG at the time GURPS 1e came out. I've never gotten over the letdown. (The only comparable letdown in my whole gaming history was the suck-ass Temple of Elemental Evil...all those years waiting after Hommlet for that?)

Quote from: Calithena-E:

I just want clarification on something. I don't have a horse in the 'universal resolution system' approach vs. 'table for everything' approach. But I am curious as to whether the former also counts as providing 'drowning and falling' rules in your view. If a game system can handle translation of imaginary content into its resolution mechanics in the general case, is that good enough, or do you actually literally want separate rules for every possible situation? (Or some approximation thereto?)

It's not a binary thing: most systems give some approximation of what I want (Even Sorcerer!).

What I want are guidelines for converting from key real-world values into game mechanics in a way that

• Matches the abstraction level of the system (so for RISUS, I expect virtually nothing. For D&D, I'd expect a lot more specificity)
• Matches the genre expectations (so for an action / adventure game, holding your breath for several minutes should be reasonable game. For high-level, high-fantasy? You should be able to fight underwater for days, c.f. Grendel)

I personally prefer less-abstract systems like D20 and GURPS -- but if the Window met the above criteria, I wouldn't complain.

Unfortunately...

Quote from: CalithenaBecause I think if so a lot of the argument here evaporates. I mean, if 'providing drowning and falling rules' amounts to 'providing guidelines for use of a universal resolution mechanic,' than even mildly house-ruled versions of things like Fudge and the Window are going to count by your criteria. (As, I'd add, would Sorcerer, and some other games written by authors affiliated with the Forge.)

An given instantiation of Fudge could certainly meet my criteria. I actually like Fudge, and some instantiations do provide reasonable guidelines for this sort of thing.

The Window, however, does not -- in fact, it explicitly states that there are no tables or guidelines for setting TN's -- it's all up to the storyteller's discretion based on what he thinks would be best for the story.

I'm not, as you might expect, impressed.

It's not that I don't dig GDS-Dramatist: it's that I think that for a game that's that explicitly GDS-Dramatist, the Window is a poor design.

BTW: I'm not saying the Window isn't an RPG, and I'm not under the illusion that my opinion of the Window (negative) or Fudge (positive) is anything but an expression of my own personal preferences and my experience of what works for me.

I also think System Doesn't Matter very much, and I would probably have a blast playing the Window on a limited basis, so my harsh assessment of the system doesn't mean I hate it or anything.

Quote from: CalithenaI suppose in that case you're still ruling out some things as unsatisfactory designs, like Wushu or My Life with Master. Personally, I think that this is about as nutty a criterion for game design as could be imagined, but I'd like to at least understand what you're saying here.

Not that familiar with either of those. I think MLwM is so narrow in scope (based on what I know of it) that it might work very well for what it does, but I doubt I'd use it as a go-to game (not that I think it's meant to play that role).

All I know about Wushu is that there's this guy on RPG.net who thinks the world of it. Based on nothing but skimming his posts, it doesn't look like something I'd like to play.

Quote from: CalithenaOut of curiosity, what do you think about mechanics dictating who wins arguments or emotional reactions where PCs and NPCs are equally subject to those mechanics?

I tend not to like those kinds of mechanics; they're tolerable in limited circumstances: specifically a PC playing someone who's much more persuasive, charismatic, charming, etc. than he is.

I only like for those rules to apply to NPC's -- and then not to really important ones.

This applies to wacky indie stuff and more traditional mechanics like Champions presence attacks and the Taunt skill in M&M / D20.

I can see the arguments for things like social combat and the like my preference is *strongly* against them.

If the PC's involved wanted to play in a game governed by those rules I'd be willing to play that way but almost no one who I know is interested.

Quote from: CalithenaI actually do hate GURPS, but not for any highblown design reason: I hate it for not being an improved version of The Fantasy Trip, which was my favorite RPG at the time GURPS 1e came out. I've never gotten over the letdown. (The only comparable letdown in my whole gaming history was the suck-ass Temple of Elemental Evil...all those years waiting after Hommlet for that?)

Brother! I feel your pain. I forgave GURPS once the Vehicle rules came out

But damn you're right about Temple.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SpikeDunno who you were talking to Jimbob, but when I played GURPS reaction rolls and advantages/disadvantages that affected them came up.  

I was talking to people in the GURPS subforum at SJGames forums. Most reported that they sometimes used them, but never RAW. One guy for example said that if someone had a positive RR modifier due to their Advantages, he gave an automatic positive reaction from NPCs, and with negative, negative (so Attractive [4] is as useful as Charisma 4 [20] - hey, that's fair!) Others gave bonuses due to roleplaying, or only sometimes rolled, etc. Others gave negative reaction rolls for things which aren't listed in the book - like, if you've a Bad Temper, after a while in a place you get a negative reaction from people.

In other words, the GMs used their common sense, rather than the rules-as-written.

Quote from: SpikeNow, as written you should probably roll universally for every NPC that the players meet. I don't have my 3e book handy (or my 4e book for that matter) to check the exact wording. Yeah, I wouldn't bother with that interpretation either.

In other words, you don't use them all the time, either.

So you're arguing for the usefulness of a rule which you don't always use. "We have to have this rule! So I can use it... if I feel like it." How's that different from, "we don't need this rule, if I need one, I can make it up." Neither gives consistency, which is after all the purpose of rules. Certainly the rule in the first case can act as a suggestion or guideline for the GM - base from which to handwave things - but then why have a rule? Have a list of suggestions, instead. Gives you more ideas in the same number of words.

Quote from: -E.This, right here, is all the vindication I think those rules would ever need -- if you'd have loved it, you could have asked the GM to use them.

No, because he didn't know those rules, and wouldn't take the time to study them. So to use them, he'd have to have been looking them up during play. That would've slowed things down. And while I as a player like gritty detailed stuff, I like more a game session in which something actually happens. If I have to choose between gritty detail and a fast pace, I'll choose the fast pace. So I can only exercise my love of gritty detail as a player if I've a GM who has the same feeling; which is just another example of how some sorts of play you can only get with people who like the same sorts of play. But I had to compromise, choosing between pace and detail.

Quote from: -E.But I can tell you this: if you're arguing against those rules from a standpoint of being someone who would love it if they're in the game, then I'm more convinced than ever that these rules have value and deserve a place in the taxonomy.

No. I don't confuse "what I like" with "what every game in the world should have." I realise that my tastes are not universal. I am heterosexual, but I would argue against any rule saying that people can't get it on with those of the same sex. "What JimBobOz wants" should not be imposed on the whole world. So for example while GMing GURPS, I didn't use all the "loss of fatigue from lack of sleep" rules and similar, simply because my players would be bored by it. The first rule in any game - roleplaying or otherwise - is, "don't be boring."

Game rules and settings aren't there to deal with what I want; they're there to help people play the sorts of games they want to. We can judge what people want from what they actually do, and what they actually do shows that people don't want a Dropped Lantern Table level of rules. Geeks on rpg forums will argue in favour of such things, but during play people will rarely or never use them.

I'm writing up an eating table. Like, when you eat, you roll to see if the fork reaches your mouth OR stabs you in the eye.

Ok, seriously, we get that the dropped lantern table is an exaggeration. But damage from falling beyond a certain distance... or rules that say how long your character can survive underwater make sense to me.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you're arguing for the usefulness of a rule which you don't always use. "We have to have this rule! So I can use it... if I feel like it." How's that different from, "we don't need this rule, if I need one, I can make it up." Neither gives consistency, which is after all the purpose of rules. Certainly the rule in the first case can act as a suggestion or guideline for the GM - base from which to handwave things - but then why have a rule? Have a list of suggestions, instead. Gives you more ideas in the same number of words.

I'd always use the rule if it was in an important situation -- the consistency occurs at a level detail in play.

For instance, I assume you don't use second-by-second movement to have your character walk down the street... but in a combat situation, you would (yeah?)

Because position matters.

Same principle here.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, because he didn't know those rules, and wouldn't take the time to study them. So to use them, he'd have to have been looking them up during play. That would've slowed things down. And while I as a player like gritty detailed stuff, I like more a game session in which something actually happens. If I have to choose between gritty detail and a fast pace, I'll choose the fast pace. So I can only exercise my love of gritty detail as a player if I've a GM who has the same feeling; which is just another example of how some sorts of play you can only get with people who like the same sorts of play. But I had to compromise, choosing between pace and detail.
 

Maybe that would have happened. Maybe he'd have read them and "digested them" and used the intuitively for the remainder of the game (was it only one session? less than a session?)

If the against-the-elements situation ran over several sessions, I think it's entirely likely that he could have read the rules and used them efficiently during the course of the game (caveat: I don't know him or his style. I'm basing that assumption on my own experience with rule-learning GMs, including myself).

And bear in mind we're not talking about a player who "had a mild preference for using some structured rules" here -- we're talking about someone (you) who would have loved it.

As a GM, if I had a player who'd love it if I used the lantern table, I'd break it out. Why not? Once we're all familiar with the rules in play, I suspect rolling on the table won't slow things down that much when a lantern falls or someone spends 6 hours in the freezing cold.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo. I don't confuse "what I like" with "what every game in the world should have." I realise that my tastes are not universal. I am heterosexual, but I would argue against any rule saying that people can't get it on with those of the same sex. "What JimBobOz wants" should not be imposed on the whole world. So for example while GMing GURPS, I didn't use all the "loss of fatigue from lack of sleep" rules and similar, simply because my players would be bored by it. The first rule in any game - roleplaying or otherwise - is, "don't be boring."

I agree with "don't be boring" -- which is why I think you're looking at this wrong.

Neither you nor I really know what most gamers want, certainly not at this granular a level of detail. I don't think polls on RPG boards (even SJG's) really give an accurate view.

Given a lack of statistical evidence, we don't have much to go on except our own preferences and observations about what sells (and even looking at that requires levels of assumptions that are clearly controversial. I think using popularity as a proxy for meets-gamers-needs is reasonable, and the best we can do, but I'm not going to make that case here)

So, we're all feeling our way through this great, dark, informationless metaphoric cavern...

But until someone drops a lantern and it points us to gamer-clarity, we have one -- maybe two -- points of reference.

The first is our own desires. In the absence of real data, I think it's reasonable to say, "A game should have what -E. wants in it." After all, I'm primarily using this to find games for me to play, yeah?

So it's a functional criteria for judging games.

The second point of data is looking at popularity from a different perspective -- we don't know if elemental exposure rules make a game popular or not (or even if they get used by most folks playing the game), but we know that some folks like them and that they're not deal breakers (e.g. they clearly don't kill the popularity of the games they're in).

If there's something you like and it's well-represented in popular games, why not take a stand and say, "Games should have this!"

It's not like you're passing a law or anything, yeah?

Quote from: JimBobOzGame rules and settings aren't there to deal with what I want; they're there to help people play the sorts of games they want to. We can judge what people want from what they actually do, and what they actually do shows that people don't want a Dropped Lantern Table level of rules. Geeks on rpg forums will argue in favour of such things, but during play people will rarely or never use them.

Again, I think you're basing your assumptions about what people actually do on sources that aren't comprehensive.

I use the reaction tables in GURPS as well -- particularly if a PC spends points in those areas and expects to get positive (or negative) reactions from NPC's (I typically roll on-request rather than automatically, and even though I might roll for important NPC's, I wouldn't use the result as anything other than a general guideline).

I... I probably *wouldn't* use the Lantern table... but I'll note that it got into the rules before there were Geeks on rpg forums to sing it's praises (if it's 1st ed RQ, which would be 80's, yeah?)

So *someone* was using it... maybe it's by EVERYONE who's *not* on an RPG board... Maybe RPG boards are full of the weird fringe who eschew the lantern table because they're too arty... who knows?

But if you otherwise respect the game, I think it's a disservice to assume that the people who thought it warranted a few lines were idiots.

Cheers,
-E.

Bollocks! Don't give me that "but we don't have rigorous statistics" bullshit. "Without rigorous statistical data, for all we know most gamers love GNS!"

Don't ask us to swallow such absurdities. It's quite plain that most people don't use all these detailed rules. If they did, then your thread would have dropped off the front page by now. If what you're saying is controversial and leads to this kind of discussion, it's because people disagree with you. Indeed, the very motivation of the thread was bitching about people mocking drowning and falling and setting things on fire rules.

I've gamed with over 500 people since I started in 1983. DAMN RIGHT I can talk about what most gamers like.

And I already told you my GURPS GM was unwilling to study the rules sufficiently to use all of them - he just wanted to judge those situations, not follow RAW. So, we do know what would have happened. The game was slow enough with him looking up the rules he did want to use! When he was playing with the group, everyone except him wanted to change from GURPS because he kept insisting on looking up the rules, and giving them pointers, "well if you do this then you can do a step," etc. If we'd used fatigue rules for lack of sleep and the like, his rules-lookups would have slowed down the game so much we'd have warped space-time and ended up playing backwards in time, and could have released GURPS 4e in 1970 before Gygax printed D&D.

Fucking statistics! Fuck those. Have you been taking rhetorical lessons from the Forgers?
"I think X."
"What? How can you say that? When did anyone say X?"
"Well, here's a link where they did."
"I don't think they mean what you say they mean."
"Here's another link where they said that, but more clearly."
"Well that's just one guy. Not everyone thinks X."
"Here's another fourteen links where fourteen other people said X."
"Well that's not a representative sample."
"How could we get a representative sample?"
"People are too spread out and hard to question. It's not possible."
"So you're saying that we can't discuss it without statistics, but it's not possible to get statistics... so in fact we can never discuss it?"
"No, no. I simply mean that my unfounded speculation is better than your unfounded speculation. No, wait, I mean... er..."

Bollocks to that. That sort of rhetoric does not belong here! :forge:

Quote from: JimBobOzBollocks! Don't give me that "but we don't have rigorous statistics" bullshit. "Without rigorous statistical data, for all we know most gamers love GNS!"

Don't ask us to swallow such absurdities. It's quite plain that most people don't use all these detailed rules. If they did, then your thread would have dropped off the front page by now. If what you're saying is controversial and leads to this kind of discussion, it's because people disagree with you. Indeed, the very motivation of the thread was bitching about people mocking drowning and falling and setting things on fire rules.

I've gamed with over 500 people since I started in 1983. DAMN RIGHT I can talk about what most gamers like.

And I already told you my GURPS GM was unwilling to study the rules sufficiently to use all of them - he just wanted to judge those situations, not follow RAW. So, we do know what would have happened. The game was slow enough with him looking up the rules he did want to use! When he was playing with the group, everyone except him wanted to change from GURPS because he kept insisting on looking up the rules, and giving them pointers, "well if you do this then you can do a step," etc. If we'd used fatigue rules for lack of sleep and the like, his rules-lookups would have slowed down the game so much we'd have warped space-time and ended up playing backwards in time, and could have released GURPS 4e in 1970 before Gygax printed D&D.

Fucking statistics! Fuck those. Have you been taking rhetorical lessons from the Forgers?
"I think X."
"What? How can you say that? When did anyone say X?"
"Well, here's a link where they did."
"I don't think they mean what you say they mean."
"Here's another link where they said that, but more clearly."
"Well that's just one guy. Not everyone thinks X."
"Here's another fourteen links where fourteen other people said X."
"Well that's not a representative sample."
"How could we get a representative sample?"
"People are too spread out and hard to question. It's not possible."
"So you're saying that we can't discuss it without statistics, but it's not possible to get statistics... so in fact we can never discuss it?"
"No, no. I simply mean that my unfounded speculation is better than your unfounded speculation. No, wait, I mean... er..."

Bollocks to that. That sort of rhetoric does not belong here! :forge:

Heh.

Alright; If I were taking rhetoric lessons from the Forge I'd have closed this thread a long time ago (specifically right after someone disagreed with me).

Let's say our view of what most gamers like differs slightly -- I don't accept that noise on an Internet thread represents a widespread controversy, but I don't think it matters:

I agree that virtually no one plays the rules-as-written, and I'm not arguing that they do (or even that they should).

In my experience people pick and choose the rules they need and that's perfectly functional.

And I'd like to point out that the focus of this thread is on personal preferences (mine, yours, everyone else's); the principles I'm laying out are personal ones -- they're my thoughts about best-practices in game design and they're considerations I'd use when choosing a game.

But asking what the majority of gamers wants is relevant: if the kinds of rules I'm talking about only appeal to a bizarre niche population, then game designers would be well-advised to ignore me and either create games without those rules or even to create games that *mock* games including those rules (where's that Go Back To The Forge thingy?)

So let's see if we can find a reasonable common assumption:

I don't think anyone's claiming to know for sure exactly what percentage of gamers would use (occasionally) and appreciate having those kinds of rules for their game system.

I assume you don't think it's 0% (based on this thread, since I've told you I use them and as a GURPS/Hero player, I trust you'll use the stereotype that we're all scrupulously honest).

I know it's not 100% (you're coming through loud and clear, guys).

What would you put a reasonable percentage at? 10%? 20%?

At a guess, I would say that 60% - 80% would, at some point prefer rules in that space (e.g. environmental hazards) to a GM ruling.

Maybe only 10% - 20% would care enough see if a candidate game had a section for them (in other words, distinctly seek them out as part of a selection criteria).

One thing I've seen here is that GM's seem to prefer to wing it (based on at least 2 respondents) while players, maybe, have a slight preference for rules.

So the answers might vary by type of player.

I suspect something under 10% would consider it a serious flaw if a game didn't have those -- raise that to 50% if the game gives no framework for making environmental-hazard calls (in other words, I'm claiming about half the gamers out there wouldn't tolerate the Window's explicitly no-guidance approach).

Maybe something under 5% (1%) would be die-hard fanatics, using those rules at every opportunity and applying all the RAW?

Just a guess.

I would put myself in the 20% or so that checks a game to see if it covers the environment -- not so much because my games are full of falling and drowning but because looking at those rules often tells me a whole lot about how well the game is written (and, despite this thread, the absence of those rules wouldn't be a deal breaker. At this point I'd be astonished if d4-d4 had drowning and falling rules, but rest assured: I wouldn't drop it just because it didn't).

I'm definitely in the "likes to have those rules sometimes" -- the number I'm putting at 60%+

And I'm in the 50%, "Avoids games like the Window."

So -- you know what gamers need. How're my numbers?

Cheers,
-E.

Jimmy: Just because I don't roll for the 80 freaking people the PC's pass on the road doesn't mean I'm not using the rule, or that somehow the player is getting robbed of his advantages.   I'll leave that level of implementation to our computer overlords when that time comes.

No. I use the rules when it matters, when the PC actually attempts to USE it, when they talk to someone.  Why? Because I'm not a computer, I can't roll a million times a second to see how many people in time's square think PC #3 looks like a Goober, and how many want to fuck his brains out... and then remember the results of all those rolls.... for each player.

Quote from: SpikeI'm not a computer, I can't roll a million times a second to see how many people in time's square think PC #3 looks like a Goober, and how many want to fuck his brains out... and then remember the results of all those rolls.... for each player.

If you only spent as much time rolling the dice as you spent spanking your own arse, this wouldn't even be a problem.  :haw: