Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
But most people don't take a system and hack it into shape if it has what seems like a signficant failing to them; they just move on to another system.
|
That's funny, I've never played in a game that didn't have at least some house rules.. even if that just means ignoring some of the ones in the rulebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I think, however, that ignoring the ways RQ doesn't match the general tastes of the hobby is burying your head in the sand, and its all too common a habit in the hobby, especially among fans of older systems.
|
What are we 'ignoring'? I am completely aware that SOME people like fate points and ads disads and other stuff... but I don't, I want the OTHER game, the one without those things. Choice is good, right?
Though I guess, as a fan of an 'older system', I'm obviously unable to discern good rules from bad...
If we go by the 'general tastes' of the hobby we'd also have to throw in levels and classes and alignments... the stuff RQ was such a revolution against in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Whereas I think that's a false dichotomy. I think trying to assume its _only_ exposure or _only_ system is lying to one's self.
|
Who said anything about 'only'... I'm just saying that trying to market the game better and get the word out... maybe set up a 'house setting' or two that would feel familiar to people... wouldn't be a bad step towards getting more players for the rules AS THEY ARE.
Trying to change the rules to suit people, when there are already a lot of happy players just doesn't seem as likely to work out. It could easily alienate folks like me and not draw in any new blood at all.