I agree with you most of the time. For example, the current HQ core rules MS contains two ways of doing what we now call extended contests, and evaluates the pros of cons and both in a neutral manner.
However, in those very rare cases where it seems to me that a particular optional rule isn't the right tool for the job--because it confuses the narrative approach underlying the entire game, and because it doesn't have much of an impact on results for all the work involved on using it--I think it's irresponsible of me to withhold that opinion from the reader. The people who really need to simulate armor will shrug, disregard my opinion, and happily incorporate the rule into their games. My responsibility is to facilitate peoples' fun. If I think that most gamers will have less fun by using a particular optional rule, I'm not doing my job if I fail to point that out. More importantly, the discussion of whether armor rules are necessary sheds light on the narrative approach underlying the rules' core assumptions. This has never been explained adequately, and one of the mandates of the new rules set is to finally do so.
Also, I guess I find it hard to believe that people who like the armor rules will have their feelings hurt when they discover that the designer thinks they're problematic. I expect most armor fans to react with Trotsky's equanimity.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail