In the Godbound thread, this came up. So I decided to make it a thread and a poll.
I don't think the system, per se, is necessarily the most robust. I think the genre is intrinsically a robust one. When you're playing a classic 1st level dirt farmer, a high degree of competence just doesn't fit that style of game. If that dirt farmer uses some combination of abilities and game mechanics to start regularly offing a half-dozen thugs without taking a scratch, the group is going to get irritated, because that's not the experience they signed on for. Even at higher levels, there's a lot of implicit concern that the PCs not be able to do certain things trivially. This dates back to the very beginnings of the game, with the "angry peasant mob" rules in the LBBs.
My reply to this.
Interesting. I've never, ever bothered with guaranteeing that people can't do something.
I mean, to me it's a problem-solving exercise, much like life. You have these abilities, both covered and not covered by the system. You have goals. You have current situation, including rules from the rulebook and the setting book.
How do you use what you have to get as close as possible to what you want?
In my book, a former dirt farmer that learned to use a sword proficiently and has killed people, is a veteran. OD&D seems to agree with me.
A veteran slaying dirt farmers happens all the time. I mean, look at medieval armies against most peasant uprisings. Look at what bandits, former soldiers, did in history, and still do to people in the Third World - both in countries with lots of firearms, and countries without those.
Actually, screw that. I know civilians who have bested multiple opponents. That's not part of the "narrative" for games like Call of Chthulhu...but it very well might happen.
Yeah, right, PCs are different. Even Unknown Armies would tell you this - normal people scatter when someone shoots at them, or even pulls a knife. PCs, as a general rule, have enough hardened Violence notches to decide whether to leg it, or to try and kill you before you can use that weapon.
And, you know, this approach has never failed me when Refereeing. Do you feel you need to constrain the PCs?
And if yes, why?
Sine Nomine's comment was, I want to emphasize that, just the thing that prompted me to think about that particulat matter. It's my question, and I'm asking about your personal opinion and Refereeing habits.
I'm not in discussion with Kevin Crawford on that point, especially since I kinda agree - many GMs seem to be doing that. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing to do, even if I'm not doing it.
Of course, I wouldn't be asking the forum to mediate in this discussion even if there was one. But I just want to repeat that there isn't a discussion. I asked about Godbound, Mr. Crawford replied, and I even liked his answer - in a "I know what you mean (but it sounds weird to me)" way.
The only reason I've quoted it is because it did prompt me to think about that. And I believe in giving credit where credit is due.