Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan Larson
If you remove all the formal rules from role-playing, the experience becomes interactive story-telling. If you have some rules, just a few, the experience is similar but you now have ways to resolve disputes about what is and is not possible. But since the rules are slim the GM still has to eyeball a lot of tests and modifiers.
I'd be interested in hearing from someone who has actually tried gaming this way. How well did it work?
|
I think I've really done this twice (both PbP).
The first time was a world building game where the various characters were Gods and could spend points to do various mythic things: create countries, peoples, artifacts, and so forth. It fell apart because after the GM-like player disappeared some of the folks didn't want to ever let their character loose a fight between gods. The fight between the characters was just fine, but the player of the god with a smaller power rating and not using the mystic artifact weapon thought that "I reform and nothing has changed hahaha!" was valid play.
The second time was a supers game with a proper GM. It lasted for a while before Real Life happened, and was actually one of the better games I've played in. This was due to a good GM, well thought out characters, and everyone understanding the unspoken rules of the type of story we were telling. There was no rolling, just tries and failures. It was still quite engaging.