Yes you have to be explicit, or how does a player know when it is needed to roll?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Omg will stop with the stupid d20 bs.
Absolutely, we can both stop discussing D20 right this second. Thanks for agreeing we should drop it.
I see it as a serious problem if you don't have rules to answer that question.
And just what is the "popular" style of playing? Streamed? Recorded? Live Actual Play? At a game store? In a basement? With friends? With strangers? Organized? Home-brew? Larping? Nordic Larping? All of these are styles, as well as some venues but also styles of playing. There are many others.
What constitutes the "popular" style of playing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait until they hear about tabletop games where you don’t roll dice at all.
That doesn't answer the question. WHAT is the "popular" style of playing?
"Answer the question, Claire."
The initiative cards mean there's no ties - if you've drawn the 5 no one else can. It's also a visual reminder of who goes when because you keep the card face up in front of you.
That's allegorical. How is that the popular style of play? You got raw numbers on groups of play across the world making that popular?
Doesn't matter you still haven't answered the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, IC is lucy with the football. We been down this Oberoni path before.
If your game has left players with three wildly different interpretations of how to apply a mechanic, then it absolutely needs a rule that is descriptive enough to clarify whether the player is required to “add,” “divide,” or “side combine.”
Your so called “rules as tools” approach wouldn’t allow for one to reinterpret a White Wolf dice pool as being the attribute multiplied by the skill for example.
Using the core rules for clarity on when to call for a check and what check to call for is a style of GMing, and not a style of play.
Folks, IC is lucy with the football. We been down this Oberoni path before.
They’re more Stewie in the crib screaming “Mom” until someone reacts
If Alien uses card draws instead of (or in addition to?) die rolls, does it do anything interesting with them?
One cool thing about initiative in Alien is that at the top of every round, before anyone goes, two PCs can exchange their cards to swap their place in the initiative order. And like I mentioned before, some exceptionally fast opponents can go twice in a round, which can be very troublesome for the PCs if their cards are next to each other.
The initiative cards mean there's no ties - if you've drawn the 5 no one else can. It's also a visual reminder of who goes when because you keep the card face up in front of you.
Yes, these are good benefits. In the games I ran I created headshots of each character (in every cinematic adventure I have seen thus far portraits are provided) on a 4x6 inch card and put them in stands in front of each player. This is how they picked whom they were going to play, with a portrait, name, and profession/rank/title the only information to base this decision on (you cannot show them all the character sheets since agendas should remain private unless the PC reveals it in-game). On the back of each were some rule reminders for the talent(s) that character possessed. The players would insert the initiative card into the side of the stand so it was clearly visible to everyone. In other games I run I use a digital initiative board, but I didn't need to with Alien. I would also use a clothespin to attach the NPC cards to my GM screen.
Yes, these are good benefits. In the games I ran I created headshots of each character (in every cinematic adventure I have seen thus far portraits are provided) on a 4x6 inch card and put them in stands in front of each player. This is how they picked whom they were going to play, with a portrait, name, and profession/rank/title the only information to base this decision on (you cannot show them all the character sheets since agendas should remain private unless the PC reveals it in-game).
Is character assignation a rule of the game, or a feature of what you ran?
Never said it would. This is why I think you missunderstood the metaphore.
First, the rules as tools not allowing for different interpretation of a static mechanic was a secondary thought used to support the first one. I was illustrating that your point about being able to interpret a mechanic multiple different ways completely breaks down when confronting a clearly defined mechanic like "how to build a dice pool."
Secondly, I think you're not that great at metaphors. This one going right up there with the self playing guitar which made as much sense to everyone in the thread as a triangle tire.
It isn't the mechanic or the rulebook that "leaves" players with different interpretations, it is the natural difference in how people think.
If the mechanic is so nebulously worded so that it can be interpreted as being either addition, or multiplication, or side combination - it is NOT an issue with the difference in how people think. It is an issue with an unclear mechanic.
You can't. There is absolutely no way to write in a way that people with different perspectives will agree on even most of the time.
The description of how to roll Initiative, an example you brought up, is written clearly enough that there are not a variety of interpretations of it. It was written in such a way that people with different perspectives will agree on it most of the time.
Rules as tools means that the rules remain unused until there is a moment where there is a need, then the best mechanic to fill that need is used, then the game continues.
Yes, it's a choice of which rule to apply and when. It is not a unique "style" unto itself, no matter how often you claim that it is.
I feel like I'm trying to explain the math behind quantum mechanics to people who barely understand arithmetic.
I was willing to give this an attempt at genuine engagement and then we arrive at your usual condescension where you imply that practically every gamer but you is too stupid to understand the concept of how to play the game.
There aren't secret rules that only you can interpret. There aren't hidden implications in the rules that only you can see. You are not the most intuitive of all gamers, you can stop with that right now.
It is the difference between "oh a trap, I'll use the anti-trap skill" vs "oh a tripwire, how should we get past it? Jump over it, trigger it from a safe distance?"
Notice that the second example usn't concerned with the obvious mechanic, but rather the narrative and wouldn't even use the anti-trap skill because it wouldn't fit the proposed solutions.
Right, you just described a gameist vs. a narrativist divide. Part of the challenge you keep running into is that in the nearly 50 years this hobby has existed, we've created terms that have meanings. You think your point is so unique and your perspective so fresh that you invent terms for things, only to in your explanation of them reveal that you're talking about a concept we're all aware of under an existing name.
If your big secret quantum mechanics is a narrativist description vs a gameist one - hate to break it to you, you're not covering any fresh ground here. You're just self aggrandizing yourself, condescending everyone else, threadjacking to wax philosophical about concepts we're all aware of in such a way as to imply you just discovered them.
Now of course comes the reply where you call me stupid, tell me I'm just not understanding you because you're SO advanced and basically reiterate once again your "secret style" where rules aren't strictly implied and narrative forward solutions are given prominence.
I'm dreadfully tired of that, can we just not do that this time?
There is a difference between a mechanic itself, and how that mechanic relates to the game/milieu.You are talking about the mechanic itself, I'm talking about how the mechanic relates to the game/milieu. Very different things.
That’s the opposite stance you took when we were discussing using specific settings to run games in a particular milieu or genre. Back then it was all interchangeable and mechanics didn’t actually interact with the milieu, and thus it didn’t actually matter. Now it does for some reason?
If you always choose left instead of rightm that is a style.
Always choosing left instead of right isn’t a style, it’s a rut that you’re stuck in. If you’re a GM it likely means you’re very boring.
Wasn't trying to imply any such thing.
Yes you were. I mean let’s look at your refutation
I was meaning the experience. Imagine if you were trying to explain the math behind quantum mechanics to someone who only knows grade school math. Do you not think that would be frustrating and awkward trying explain math that is built on several layers of concepts that are not understood?
Have we considered how frustrating it is for you trying to explain something where you understand several layers of concepts that we don’t? There are only two implications to take from this; that we are stupid or that you are a super genius. Since it isn’t the latter, you must be claiming the former
Here where you dismissively refer to us as grade schoolers isn’t meant to aggrandize you and diminish us?
Not quite, though probably related. Narrativist is generally more about A) collaborative creation of a story rather than feeling immersed as a character, and B) generally shuns mechanics that can be used as tools, using "rules-light" systems, but those systems still adhered to as "rules are how to play" fashion,it just those rules-light rules tend towards more abstract and meta lvl mechanics.
You described a storytelling game, I’m referring to Narrativist roleplay where decision making and game interaction is derived from the in character narrative not the out of character game. This is what I was talking about when I brought up your issue where you define things your way without concerning yourself with the terminology the rest of us have been using for decades. The rest of your explanation confirms that you are describing exactly what I said you were describing by saying that some players will go for the anti-trap skill (the gamist choice) while other will go for a solution that engages with the setting as a real location as if they were their characters (the narrative choice)
This second solution is not narrativist, and in fact can even be applied to games bordering on gamist.
Yeah, because it’s not a style of game - it’s a type of play. Shockingly, it’s also possible for players of both types you described to co-exist in the same campaign. Because it isn’t an either/or situation and it never has has been. Most of us have been playing this way for decades.
Ever hear of "reading between the lines?" How would you describe it when you've read between the lines and no one believes you.
A persisting delusional state where you have become so assured of your own genius that you fail to consider that the other people telling you a cigar is just a cigar might actually be right.
You're not stupid, just not open minded enough to understand. It isn't obvious to you, and you already dislike me, so you are content to stick with explanations that fit your worldview and paint me as a bad guy. So much easier than questioning the foundations of what you believe. Which is pretty normal for humanity really.
I don’t think you’re the bad guy, I think you’re unaware that what you think is groundbreaking is in fact commonplace. I also think you fail to understand that your constant desire to discuss this is a constant annoyance to everyone, despite them telling you time and again.
We all get what you’re saying, we just don’t care. We don’t want to discuss the style of game play that is seen routinely on Critical Role that you somehow think you “discovered.” We don’t want to discuss D20 3.X.
We WANT to discuss the journey we have taken through different TTRPG systems.
Yes, these are good benefits. In the games I ran I created headshots of each character (in every cinematic adventure I have seen thus far portraits are provided) on a 4x6 inch card and put them in stands in front of each player. This is how they picked whom they were going to play, with a portrait, name, and profession/rank/title the only information to base this decision on (you cannot show them all the character sheets since agendas should remain private unless the PC reveals it in-game).Is character assignation a rule of the game, or a feature of what you ran?
It's just what I did for my games. Re-reading the first adventure I ran it says to hand out the character sheets to the players and let them choose (though the provided documents are not full character sheets, but more like stat blocks with a short paragraph describing the character). I created full-fledged character sheets for my games and put the provided info on the back along with some rules reminders. When we played (and I think still to this day) I was the only person in my group with the rulebook, so I tried to keep it as simple as possible for my players. This could just be because I ran the adventure from the starter set first; later adventures do include full character sheets, though I still created them myself (habit I suppose?).
I understand the concept of analogies and comparisons. Consider for a moment the last two years you have tried to present this super difficult to understand gaming style that only you grasp to the rest of the posters on this forum. In those two years you have not presented a single analogy or comparison that anyone has understood. Does that mean that we all don’t know what an analogy is, or does it mean that you don’t know how to effectively present an analogy?
None of what you say has gone over anyone’s head. I just recognize that you aren’t really saying anything that I didn’t read in Dragon Magazine in the 80’s.
I get that you think you’ve discovered a bold new interpretation of gaming, but you’ve not presented it in a way that convinces anyone that you have. Multiple people have all told you that they think what you’re describing is already very common. So here’s the challenge: spend a little time workshopping your message so that you can make it more clearly, or take it to another forum because if it is a bold new secret style - you aren’t getting through to anyone here. Conversely if it is a commonplace style that you don’t recognize others use - no one is getting through to you.
This is a journey through systems. I'm on a quest seeking a certain kind of gameplay experience, which means getting more people to recognize it so I can play with them. And of course, getting a good system, but of course, how the system is used matters greatly.
There already exists a thread about your quest to seek a certain type of gaming experience. Your pedantry and condescension chased everyone out of it. THIS thread is about discussing the journey through systems that we have taken up to now. When you come here you forcefully grind that conversation to a halt so that you can discuss your quest, but your quest hasn’t progressed any. You’re still stuck on your vision statement, still trying to emulate D20.
This thread is NOT about your quest, it was specifically created to explore a different aspect of systems than your quest, and your presence here adds nothing to the OP’s stated intent for the thread. All you do is derail our conversation to discuss something many of us have directly expressed to you that we don’t care to hear about.
Take your quest back to your thread, leave us to discuss what we want in this thread without having to hear about your silly quest for something you’re consistently unable to describe.
Goodbye
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like there is a Cowboy Bebop RPG on the way to KS next year. From Mana Project Studios that are launching a generic fantasy RPG called Not the End.
The system is called Hexsys and uses a hex map for a character sheet. From what I read so far, you use a blind draw bag and tokens to determine success and complications. Checkers are recommended for the coloring and same texture feel.
The GM is called a narrator, and encounters are called scenes. Sounds like a series of co-narrative elements are discussed between narrator and hero(es) and then a test will determine the outcome of the scene. Tests difficulty is determined by character traits and difficulty of actions. A chip pool is created and tossed into a bag and then randomly drawn for results.
Sounds fun and exactly the kind of thing to run a Cowboy Bebop game with. I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Replying to the current topic in such a way that it pivots back to what you want to discuss rather than furthering what we were discussing it NOT “on topic.” That is literally the definition of derailing the thread.
Of course you don’t have a problem with the conversation moving on a different direction. You HAVE to move it in a different direction to be able to discuss your preferred topic. We don’t mind it going in new directions either, we mind it CONSTANTLY going in your preferred direction. Go back and read the whole thread for the last five pages. Not the number of people who specifically express frustration with both you and your topics. It’s more than just me.
As for your question to Pan - why did they mention the detail about the GM being called a Narrator and Encounters being called Scenes? Because it’s a component of the information they have about the just announced system that has not yet come out. It is where they want to go next in their journey through TTRPG systems so they injected as much info as they could to generate discussion. Since Pan is the OP of this thread, that is all perfectly valid and they don’t have to answer to you.
Now please drop this unneeded defense of yourself and simply move forward elsewhere.
Pan, the World of Darkness has used scenes as a descriptor for encounters since V:tM came out so it is interesting to see another system using that. I’m very curious about this random draw resolution mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a game calls the arbiter of rules can tell us quite a lot about the designer's intent, so I am glad this tidbit was shared. Dungeon Master, referee, narrator, Game Mother - all of these have meaning in the game's context.
Pan, the World of Darkness has used scenes as a descriptor for encounters since V:tM came out so it is interesting to see another system using that. I’m very curious about this random draw resolution mechanic.
When I said "encounters" I guess I should expand on that. This system pretty much goes scene to scene. You dont have exploration (unless it creates an interesting scene for the narrative) and you dont have downtime (unless, again, there is something important to character development or story to tell). There is no book of items or equipment. Each character does have a special item that they can use during sessions. I.E. Spike's racing ship in CB or King Arthur with Excalibur. Hexsys appears closer to PBtA than D&D and other crunchier systems.
The token drawing during tests to determine the difficulty and/or danger of the action. For instance, decoding a secret message might be difficult, but not dangerous. Defusing a homemade bomb might not be difficult, but be very dangerous. Difficulty is a number between 1 and 6, and danger is between 1 and 4. The hero decides on success tokens between 1 and 4. Once the levels are decided, the token bag is ready for draw.
When you draw, you only need 1 success and player chooses how badly they want a success. Any complications are handed to the narrator who can use them. If you dont draw any success, you may take further risk by drawing again, but you could be handing even more complications to the narrator. Any additional success beyond 1, can be used to add further positive outcomes to the scene. For example, you maybe chasing down a thief in a crowded city. With 2 successes you catch the thief, but he also has the stolen item on them when you do. The narrator then gets to complicate things based on the amount of tokens they possess.
There is language that determines failures like, "leaving a scene" and "exiting a scene." It's all very purposeful to make it feel episodic and cinematic. I think this is appropriate for something like Cowboy Bebop.
When I said "encounters" I guess I should expand on that. This system pretty much goes scene to scene. You dont have exploration (unless it creates an interesting scene for the narrative) and you dont have downtime (unless, again, there is something important to character development or story to tell).
I knew you meant the dictionary definition of encounters rather than the D&D definition of encounters. WoD Scenes are the same. Anything that occurs is a scene.
The token drawing during tests to determine the difficulty and/or danger of the action. For instance, decoding a secret message might be difficult, but not dangerous. Defusing a homemade bomb might not be difficult, but be very dangerous. Difficulty is a number between 1 and 6, and danger is between 1 and 4. The hero decides on success tokens between 1 and 4. Once the levels are decided, the token bag is ready for draw.
When you draw, you only need 1 success and player chooses how badly they want a success. Any complications are handed to the narrator who can use them. If you dont draw any success, you may take further risk by drawing again, but you could be handing even more complications to the narrator. Any additional success beyond 1, can be used to add further positive outcomes to the scene. For example, you maybe chasing down a thief in a crowded city. With 2 successes you catch the thief, but he also has the stolen item on them when you do. The narrator then gets to complicate things based on the amount of tokens they possess.
Interesting
I would imagine that the token either indicates success or failure and that compounding failure has negative effects. Risking four tokens gives more chances to fail, but also increases the potential reward.
So, why would a hero not put in 4 success tokens every time, what's the balancing aspect there?
Im no expert and working off a skim of 62 page quickstart, but from what I gathered you need to make sense of the scene and connect it back your character sheet. You can only use traits and abilities that make sense to what you are doing. I mean, sure you can bend over backwards to put 4 tokens in every bag, but there are risks involved invoking complications.
Moving forward, you may collect adrenaline from excessive complications, which forces you to draw maximum 4 from your next test, which also increases the complications. Or you may become confused, in which you draw a single token, which is basically do or die of a single token draw for next the test.
Keep in mind, this is a narrative driven game. There are no hit points, no magic items to collect, nothing to gain by succeeding better. Thats not to say the stakes of a test cant be life and death, its just not a focus of the game. There are ways in which you can evolve you character (level up), but succeeding a lot doesn't help you do that.
So, my online group is going to venture into Forbidden Lands that uses the Free League system. Forbidden Lands has an old school flavor to it in both setting material and artwork.
The key conceits is that there was a strange phenomenon brought on by wars and evil that made long distance travel impossible for a century or longer. The red mist has lifted and a new age of mystery and adventure has sprung forward. Sandbox gaming to discover hidden secrets about the setting, gain fortune and fame, and establish your own keep and home to build and defend.
The system uses a character sheet with typical attributes, skills, classes, and kin (race/ancestry). While adventuring you face moments of danger and excitement that require your skills and abilities to be put to use. Build a dice pool of D6 and try and get 6's to succeed. 1's bring complications to the endeavor.
Thats what I got so far, I'll report back on session 0 and gameplay soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My brother in law has been trying to convince me to run a game of D&D for my nephew, and over the Christmas holiday we took a stab at a board game instead. My young nephew's reaction to Risk (while still winning mind you) was enough to convince me that a game system where there are contradictory rules and a wide range of possibility presented by the dice mechanics might not be something he's 100% ready for.
I remembered some of our chats in this thread (and the similar one prior to it) and picked up a copy of Kids on Bikes and I cannot say enough for its clean and simple to grasp rules. In just 45 pages of player facing rules, it presents the material in a way where expectations are clear and the rules easy to read for someone at my nephews reading level.
Simple mechanics, simple target number assignments, clear easy to communicate goals.
Highly recommend.
My brother in law has been trying to convince me to run a game of D&D for my nephew, and over the Christmas holiday we took a stab at a board game instead. My young nephew's reaction to Risk (while still winning mind you) was enough to convince me that a game system where there are contradictory rules and a wide range of possibility presented by the dice mechanics might not be something he's 100% ready for.
I remembered some of our chats in this thread (and the similar one prior to it) and picked up a copy of Kids on Bikes and I cannot say enough for its clean and simple to grasp rules. In just 45 pages of player facing rules, it presents the material in a way where expectations are clear and the rules easy to read for someone at my nephews reading level.
Simple mechanics, simple target number assignments, clear easy to communicate goals.
Highly recommend.
Thats great. Hasbro is going to release HeroQuest and thats what stepped me into DD.
So, my online group is going to venture into Forbidden Lands that uses the Free League system. Forbidden Lands has an old school flavor to it in both setting material and artwork.
The key conceits is that there was a strange phenomenon brought on by wars and evil that made long distance travel impossible for a century or longer. The red mist has lifted and a new age of mystery and adventure has sprung forward. Sandbox gaming to discover hidden secrets about the setting, gain fortune and fame, and establish your own keep and home to build and defend.
The system uses a character sheet with typical attributes, skills, classes, and kin (race/ancestry). While adventuring you face moments of danger and excitement that require your skills and abilities to be put to use. Build a dice pool of D6 and try and get 6's to succeed. 1's bring complications to the endeavor.
Thats what I got so far, I'll report back on session 0 and gameplay soon.
I'm back. Forbidden Lands using the Free League system has become my favorite new OSR style RPG. There are just enough rules to make the game easy to understand and play. It leaves plenty of room for free form RP and the rules stay out of the way.
The game runs on a pool of dice concept. You take your attribute + skill and make a pool of D6. For example, Gothar the barbarian has a 5 Strength score and a might skill of 3. He makes up a pool of 8 D6 and rolls them during applicable checks and aims for die results of 6 (success), while hoping for no 1s (injury).
Play is smooth and easy the way I like OSR games to feel. Also, nuanced enough to be interesting mechanically at the table. Not everything is foisted on freeform play.
This was my first Free League game. I hear very good things about Alien and the upcoming Bladerunner settings. I heard Tales from the Loop is actually more like a stranger things rip off than like the Amazon Prime series.
Anyone else have experience with Free League games?
I played Tales from the Loop once, and think calling it a “Stranger Things ripoff” does it a disservice. The rules are solid, while the (beautiful!) art throughout is the artist’s original setting that predates the show and inspired the game. There were two other players who had a great time inventing a spooky mystery… while I tried to navigate the social perils of being a weird lesbian at the homecoming game.
Strongly recommend it, and I’m overdue to pick up the sequel, Thins From The Flood.
I played Tales from the Loop once, and think calling it a “Stranger Things ripoff” does it a disservice. The rules are solid, while the (beautiful!) art throughout is the artist’s original setting that predates the show and inspired the game. There were two other players who had a great time inventing a spooky mystery… while I tried to navigate the social perils of being a weird lesbian at the homecoming game.
Strongly recommend it, and I’m overdue to pick up the sequel, Thins From The Flood.
The system is indeed good, but I vastly prefer the series to "teens who solve spooky mysteries" ymmv
I've a little experiece with FASA and a little experience with LUG-Trek, some extensive experience with Decipher's Trek from the early 00's (which was wonky to say the least) and was one of the playtesters for Modiphius' STA.
The best experiences I've had running Star Trek have been in limited run stories rather than ongoing campaigns.
FFG Star Wars and Star Trek Adventures share a little design DNA given that Jay Little was the lead designer for FFG's SW before being hired by Modiphius and taking the role of lead designer of the 2D20 system.
I've toyed around with the notion of reskinning Genesys' space setting (a little less space opera-y than SW) and attempting to run Star Trek within it.
Raising this one back from the dead because I finally got around to running Star Trek within the Genesys system. I added on the Path creation elements from Star Trek Adventures - with each path allowing for a rank increase or a talent purchase.
It was a one shot adventure so I build pre-gens but they came together more quickly than STA characters and when it came to gameplay everything rocked and rolled pretty well.
Anything I couldn't immediately locate in one of Genesys' settings I could easily pull out of Star Wars and reskin.
There was an ease of play and speed to it that I've never found in an official Trek game before. This is the feeling of a Trek game that I've been chasing the dragon on for decades.
Is it an ongoing? Probably not, but it definitely has the ability to scratch the itch.
So, how well do think it could handle different styles of play, as in monolithic "one true way" or more like a toolbox? Obviously setting and genre are irrelevant to this question.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. It plays like a game of Genesys approximating an episode of Star Trek.
Genesys has a baked in play style that is unique to that game. There is a tone that is unique to Star Trek. I'm not sure what other styles of play to suggest that Genesys could handle. Nor am I entirely clear on what you mean by "one true way" vs "toolbox"
No true rpg system is exclusively one style of play. There is variation in how well a system can handle other ways of play however.
One true way is the idea that the system defines playstyle, and often when designers fall into this erroneous belief, they focus rather heavily on creating a monolithic system that is less useful to play outside the expectations of the designers.
Toolbox however, is the idea that the expectations and preconceived notions of the players and GM define playstyle, and when designers believe this, the mechanics tend to be more robust and tool-like and thus more easily adapted to broad array of styles and make it easier for GMs to make rulings on edge cases easier and more consistent with less work.
An example of why I say "one true way" is false is because you can take the old school way of play requiring wits, poles, flour, pitons, etc, almost never used for their intended purpose, to make their way through the game, is a style that can be play in nearly every rpg system, including the likes of savage worlds and even 4e dnd, though some will handle that play better than others, it is still doable. Playing old school style might be encouraged or discouraged by the mechanics but never dictated by the mechanics, it is dictated by the players. There are lots of different styles, different sets of expectations and preconceptions out there.
Another example comes from mouseguard, a burning wheel system. When I tried that game, all the other players had very limited alternative experiences and tried to play with the idea of following their characters every step of the journey, but mouseguard is built on the assumption that only the most prominent scenes will actually be played out and therefore, even though the characters might pass through a dozen cities, only one or two of those cities will be seen in actual play. We could actually play the way everyone was used to but it was very clearly working against the system in that case.
So my question is how easily can the system you tried be used for other ways of play if players brought different expectations to the game to play in a different way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, reviving this thread was a mistake.
Is there a problem with my question? I'm asking you about a system you played and some of your opinions about it. What's the problem with that?