Author Topic: True second by second initiative  (Read 3135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: True second by second initiative
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2012, 07:10:43 AM »
I don't think there is a really workable solution.
I don't agree. There are thousands and thousands of games being played that disprove this - obviously they have found a workable solution.

[QOUTE]So if you put it back into terms of the GM and his players trying to have fun together, and out of the setting meta-logic and game mechanics meta-logic, realism and believability are minor concerns compared to the basic problem of how to make it granular enough that the fighter's player doesn't feel like he's getting skipped, yet streamlined enough that the thief's player doesn't give up and take a nap waiting to finish picking the lock.[/quote]No doubt, that can be a problem. But I truly think that the underlining problem is not fighter's actions vs thief's actions, it is trust.

Rules are made because we don't trust. And they are needed because there are some very untrustworthy people out there. The more we don't trust, the more rules we want to create. But, no rules can cover every situation, so we must have people who can make judgment calls at hand. (Hence, the GM, he or she is not just there to map & stock the dungeon, y'know.)

I think it better to have a framework and trust, than to try and make a gajillion rules to try and cover every situation.

Now, that is not to say that I (and others) like a game, inspite of the rules. On the contrary, I like both Rolemaster and 7th Sea, two very different games, one might say at the opposite end of the gaming spectrum, for their rules. RM is very gritty and detail oriented, while 7th Sea is a very loose and high-adventure sort of game. I like them both for what they do. So the rules themselves do lend something to the game. (Which you knew, of course, just trying to explain my point here.) So, we are not likely to just boil it all down to complete narrative with no written rules anytime soon. (At least I am not, and I believe most of you aren't either.) But, we don't need to pile rule, upon rule, upon rule, only to arrive at the same place: The GM making a call. It will always come down to that, no matter how many rules there are.

And, hey, if the "nuts & bolts" are what you are into; go for it. Have a great time with them. For me, I prefer not so many nuts & bolts, and more color, texture, and flavor - which seem to get lost when I am worrying about this mechanic affecting that mechanic, not to mention this other one over here. That just takes me out of the game. (Sort of like when you are watching a show and you see the boom-mike drop into the shot.)
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.