Looking back at Yesterday's Posts

I realize that in all the long-windedness of my literary meanderings, the real message might not have been obvious. Here's the points I should have made:

1. F# is a really good system.
   
2. It's very elegant, and easy to remember and run. I took about 10 minutes explaining the rules at the start of our first session, and ended up with only two rules questions coming up all night - both of which were resolved without having to look any further than the one page summary sheet.
   
3. The rules never once got in the way of the story or characterization, even with the weirdass setting I was using. Neither did the lightness of the rules ever leave us clueless on how to proceed. It's not very crunchy, or tactical, but it doesn't try to be, either. It's narrative, and free-wheeling, and flexible, and it succeeds admirably in those arenas.
   
4. Most importantly, it was fun. I like it.

That's not to say F# is the game to end all games. Some folks will just prefer a more tactical system, or more crunchy PC stats, or to keep all the narrative control in the GMs hands, and for those folks F# is a poor fit.

It's also not completely flawless. The section on GM-imposed mostly-negative aspects could probably use one or two more examples. Having the steepness of the bell curve emphasized in the rules would better prepare the new GM. But none of those minor gripes in any diminished the fun for me or my group. (I'll of course be forwarding my feedback on to the author in hopes that version 1.2 might be a little tighter in those areas).

In the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that I used to game with the author/designer of F#. Don't want anyone to think I'm mindlessly shilling for him. Had his game sucked, I would have burst his little bubble with glee. Then I even would have rubbed his face in it. That's just the kind of friends we are.