Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

RobW · 10-14-2019, 03:34 PM

Not important. But worth it anyway I'd say.

It's funny, there have been a few things on this forum where my mind has been changed as a result of the discussion. I can think of four straight off:
1. RAW really do intend that you can't "save" IQ points for future talents
2. Roll-to-miss really would be better if based on a single to-hit roll, which gets more difficult as the number of intervening figures increases.
3. It actually is sensible to me, now, that thrown weapons would receive a facing bonus.
4. Weapon expertise should definitely not be allowed for unusual weapons (eg boomerang, shaken, lasso)

But there hasn't been much effect of these new beliefs. For (1) -- can't save IQ points for later talents -- yes I became convinced this was the SJ intention, but I just don't like it and can't see switching.
For (2) -- a single roll-to-miss roll -- I became convinced this is a cleaner and less gamable approach, but the other players in my group like the drama of the standard roll-to-miss, one roll for each intervening figure. So even though I'm willing to change, they aren't interested.
For (3) -- facing bonus for thrown weapons -- this makes good sense to me now, but I don't believe it is the intention of the rules. That is coupled with the fact that thrown weapons are a remote and dusty corner of the rules AFAIC. In all the years we've played I don't think anyone has thrown a weapon in anger (a few times for fun or to produce drama, but not because it was the sensible tactic). So again the discussions have changed my mind about something, but not produced direct play changes.
For (4) -- expertise with peculiar weapons -- well, this produces obscene results, and I dislike most of the peculiar weapons rules anyway. So here's a case where I needed almost no convincing and we are playing differently.

That said, I really enjoy nitty gritty discussions about rules and rule systems. This kind of discussion is sometimes dismissed as "rules lawyering". For me, a rules lawyer is someone arguing with the GM about the rules in the middle of the game. Disruptive. Bad. Discussing the ins and outs of the rules on a forum is entertainment, man!

Ah, another thing where my mind has changed. I actually now do believe the moderators when they say geek-out rules discussions might put off at least some new players.

10-14-2019, 03:34 PM	#6
RobW Join Date: Mar 2018	Re: How important are our "tweaks" Not important. But worth it anyway I'd say. It's funny, there have been a few things on this forum where my mind has been changed as a result of the discussion. I can think of four straight off: 1. RAW really do intend that you can't "save" IQ points for future talents 2. Roll-to-miss really would be better if based on a single to-hit roll, which gets more difficult as the number of intervening figures increases. 3. It actually is sensible to me, now, that thrown weapons would receive a facing bonus. 4. Weapon expertise should definitely not be allowed for unusual weapons (eg boomerang, shaken, lasso) But there hasn't been much effect of these new beliefs. For (1) -- can't save IQ points for later talents -- yes I became convinced this was the SJ intention, but I just don't like it and can't see switching. For (2) -- a single roll-to-miss roll -- I became convinced this is a cleaner and less gamable approach, but the other players in my group like the drama of the standard roll-to-miss, one roll for each intervening figure. So even though I'm willing to change, they aren't interested. For (3) -- facing bonus for thrown weapons -- this makes good sense to me now, but I don't believe it is the intention of the rules. That is coupled with the fact that thrown weapons are a remote and dusty corner of the rules AFAIC. In all the years we've played I don't think anyone has thrown a weapon in anger (a few times for fun or to produce drama, but not because it was the sensible tactic). So again the discussions have changed my mind about something, but not produced direct play changes. For (4) -- expertise with peculiar weapons -- well, this produces obscene results, and I dislike most of the peculiar weapons rules anyway. So here's a case where I needed almost no convincing and we are playing differently. That said, I really enjoy nitty gritty discussions about rules and rule systems. This kind of discussion is sometimes dismissed as "rules lawyering". For me, a rules lawyer is someone arguing with the GM about the rules in the middle of the game. Disruptive. Bad. Discussing the ins and outs of the rules on a forum is entertainment, man! Ah, another thing where my mind has changed. I actually now do believe the moderators when they say geek-out rules discussions might put off at least some new players.