[UA] Quick Favor

[matt ryan]

I wouldn't even call that "fudging"; I'd call it "flavoring". Good work.

I think both authors agree that "less is more", an old television adage we 
would repeat back and forth in the business. But we don't have to guess how 
they feel, (I mean, we could just ask them, they are both list 
contributors) page 139 details it beautifully.

"We're going to place ourselves squarely in the left wing of game design 
with this next statement: rules aren't as important as description."

I think the rules operate great. I have no problem "flavoring" combat 
sequences for dramatic effect. UA's combat is wonderfully simple. Actions 
and results happen fast. There are plenty of games offering more complex 
combat mechanics. People could play those games if they found UA's rules 
too ambiguous. We just finished playing a Deadlands campaign. Talk about 
too many rules for combat.

I just (last night) finished GMing "Joy and Sorrows" from One-Shots. One 
player decided to go toe-to-toe with one of the donut-eating security 
guards. After two rounds the guard had the player's character on his back 
while he sat on his chest and threw hay-makers into his skull. After two 
successful punches the player desperately tried to get away. I didn't need 
to worry about knock-out rules or any of that, just dramatic tension and 
flying knuckles.

Good work with your character, Gaston. I'd name him "Jack Chance".

matt


At 11:11 AM 7/2/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Thank you's to Matt, Gareth, and Joe.  Much, much appreciated, all.
>
>Opinions?  Is it kosher to fudge the basic stats like that to make them,
>well, different?
>
>
>gaston
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>UA mailing list
>UA at lists.uchicago.edu
>http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua