Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

"Erol K. Bayburt" <ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:0sbga3tra31g6up3p5ddukh24drvgbngkk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You rang?


Not really, I thought you killed filed me.


> 1. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss players' sharing in the
> designer's goal. After all, in Age of Heroes "the mechanics exist for
> a designer goal that means nothing to the normal player" i.e. a system
> strongly sup****ts gamist goals and severely rebukes any lack of player
> tactical skill.

I agree about AoH, and have often said it was a horrid game design-
although 
for a different reason. The die and combat mechanics are very simple and 
transparent.

Poor and concealing dice mechanics are never a valid gaming style (I have 
seen one assertion sup****ting the concept that it is, but it wasn't made
in 
this thread and is better suited by removing visible die mechanics 
completely). Instead they are selected for "being different", reasons 
unknown to the designer, or impossible claims of simulation such as Simon 
makes. In Simon's case not only is the goal foolish, it isn't even
achived.


> As I understand it, this group is all about discussing and
> understanding gaming viewpoints that one would never ever tolerate in
> a game one played in or GMed oneself.

I've reached the conclusion that group goal died some time ago, and never 
really existed in the first place. Lip service was certainly paid to it,
but 
it ran in very limited directions- mostly towards Mary.