Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9073925" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Unfortunately, the approaches tend to be hegemonic. If you solve a few things with distinct mechanics, there is a great temptation to try to solve <em>everything</em> with distinct mechanics, which is a near-guaranteed recipe for bloated, ridiculous mess. Likewise, if you work to unify <em>many</em> of the mechanics, it can be tempting for both symmetry and accessibility to try to unify as many mechanics as you can. Simpler rules almost always require that you reduce the number of exceptions that have to get special treatment--and isn't that just another way of saying bespoke subsystems? A rule with 17 exceptions is hardly a "rule" at all.</p><p></p><p>Overall, in a context where unified vs bespoke mechanics tend to drive one or the other out, I find the flaws of unified mechanics to be much milder and easier to paper over than the flaws of bespoke ones. Because the whole point of bespoke mechanics is that they are unique and distinct--meaning each and every problem is unique and distinct. It becomes harder to diagnose the problems, and when you do, each needs a bespoke solution. Maybe a better way to say it is: It is <em>hard</em> to create a rule that seems to work all the time <em>and</em> which has no exceptions. It is easy--trivial!--to make new exceptions to an existing universal rule.</p><p></p><p>IMO, the obvious best result would be something where the <em>default</em> is unified mechanics (because those are much easier for players to understand and employ, but much harder to create), and then add a <em>select few</em> bespoke mechanics, only as needed, when the cost of learning is worth the gains from custom-tailored stuff. The bespoke bits would require extra special testing, beyond even what regular mechanics would require. But that overall structure would seem to marry the benefits while mitigating the conflicts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9073925, member: 6790260"] Unfortunately, the approaches tend to be hegemonic. If you solve a few things with distinct mechanics, there is a great temptation to try to solve [I]everything[/I] with distinct mechanics, which is a near-guaranteed recipe for bloated, ridiculous mess. Likewise, if you work to unify [I]many[/I] of the mechanics, it can be tempting for both symmetry and accessibility to try to unify as many mechanics as you can. Simpler rules almost always require that you reduce the number of exceptions that have to get special treatment--and isn't that just another way of saying bespoke subsystems? A rule with 17 exceptions is hardly a "rule" at all. Overall, in a context where unified vs bespoke mechanics tend to drive one or the other out, I find the flaws of unified mechanics to be much milder and easier to paper over than the flaws of bespoke ones. Because the whole point of bespoke mechanics is that they are unique and distinct--meaning each and every problem is unique and distinct. It becomes harder to diagnose the problems, and when you do, each needs a bespoke solution. Maybe a better way to say it is: It is [I]hard[/I] to create a rule that seems to work all the time [I]and[/I] which has no exceptions. It is easy--trivial!--to make new exceptions to an existing universal rule. IMO, the obvious best result would be something where the [I]default[/I] is unified mechanics (because those are much easier for players to understand and employ, but much harder to create), and then add a [I]select few[/I] bespoke mechanics, only as needed, when the cost of learning is worth the gains from custom-tailored stuff. The bespoke bits would require extra special testing, beyond even what regular mechanics would require. But that overall structure would seem to marry the benefits while mitigating the conflicts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition
Top