I'm not sure how long you've been lurking here before you joined, but...this IS a Tabletop RPG Game Design focused forum. While different ideas on design have been discussed, they are discussing their design ramifications. So seeking to doubt a large benefit of the Gaming Den and its members, shows don't seem to know this forum well (and possibly insulting it members inadvertently as well).Im cool with that. Even if I disagree about the "game design forum" part myself.
silva wrote:Well it seems you dont know Amber enough to speak for it.
As controversial this is going to sound to you, ye don't need to play a given RPG to get an introspective look into its ruleset. Much like we don't need to play an RPG to see if it's RNG works or not (math is something that can be tested obviously).
Just because you personally, do not see a problem, does not mean said problems do not exist. That line of thinking is simply being dishonest for discussion, and you'd be much less relevant to discussion if ye advocate something like that.I've read the former and played the later and never found any problem with it, except "stylistic disagreements"
It is true there will be more to making a given RPG, than just its ruleset, but in terms of talking about it as a "game", its rules are important. As thing is about RIFTS, while I'm sure it's something I would enjoy reading, unlikely something I'd ever play (which given its apparent quality of writing, would be a shame its rules give such disservice). Saying we only care about "task resolution" is another example of you truly looking to be dishonest in discussion here (your language barrier both linguistically and mentally be damned).
Lastly, it is clear and sad, that you're trying to shutdown discussion as evidenced by "it's only opinion", "FUN", "gotta be a designer before can criticize!", and"Shut up" excuses. All childish notions you should seek to learn and overcome from.