Unpopular opinions go here

[Maxperson]

The actual point was that it can be if one got rid of Combat. Thats the basis for the delineation of Rules vs Content rules.

The game doesn't disappear without the latter


If one actually reads the full conversation from where it started in post #5,414 (its actually earlier but I don't care to keep going back), you'll find that this is the entire point of what Ive been saying, and it isn't wrong.

I don't agree with you on the rules distinction. All hard mechanics are rules that in some way another deal with content. Whether it's to shape content, like the rules that you can only pick 1 race and 1 class at 1st level, or the ones that deal with only content like a medusa can turn you to stone with X gaze mechanic.

I think differentiating them is a distinction that doesn't matter. There's no rule that the game can't do without.

 

[Emberashh]

I'm not arguing that you can't play an RPG in the way you describe, only that when you take all the rules out a particular game you aren't playing that game any more.

And if you read my posts you'll find I said the exact same thing.

I don't agree with you on the rules distinction. All hard mechanics are rules that in some way another deal with content. Whether it's to shape content, like the rules that you can only pick 1 race and 1 class at 1st level, or the ones that deal with only content like a medusa can turn you to stone with X gaze mechanic.

I think differentiating them is a distinction that doesn't matter

Capital R rules vs lowercase r rules. Content can be rules, but are not ever Rules.

Its a consequence of a lack of a better term. If you know of a better one, do feel free to suggest it and Ill probably use that instead.

The concept I am describing independent of the words Im using is not wrong.

There's no rule that the game can't do without.

I think FATAL pretty much disproves that idea. There practically isn't a single page in that drivel that couldn't be done without.

But even in DND, there's plenty.

Components for example aren't missed, as they're unintegrated and don't matter at all unless its forced through roleplay. Even the gold costing ones can often be ignored outright.

Encumbrance is another one, and one of the bigger ones that aren't missed.

Obtuse object interactions too; especially with regards to swapping weapons or using two of them.

 

[Maxperson]

Capital R rules vs lowercase r rules. Content can be rules, but are not ever Rules.

Its a consequence of a lack of a better term. If you know of a better one, do feel free to suggest it and Ill probably use that instead.

The concept I am describing independent of the words Im using is not wrong.

It's not that there aren't different kinds of rules. It's that there's no real need for a distinction.

I think FATAL pretty much disproves that idea. There practically isn't a single page in that drivel that couldn't be done without.

I don't know FATAL, but I'm pretty confident that if I wanted to come up with some different rule or in some cases no rule for something, I could do it.

But even in DND, there's plenty.

My point is that even in D&D you can do away with 1d20+ modifiers and still play the game. We can flip a quarter to see who wins, or if we want to get more complex, each side flips a number of quarters equal to their bonuses and the most heads wins.

There is no rule that can't be done away with in some fashion. In D&D or in any other game.

 

[Hussar]

Back to the race thing which is a much more interesting conversation.

The notion that mechanics make races interesting is partially true. After all, novel mechanics like Halfling Luck, for example, do distinguish halflings from, say, elves. However, I was mostly responding to the notion that floating ASI's somehow reduced a race's uniqueness.

That's like saying Spock is really interesting because he has a +2 Strength. That's like literally the least interesting thing about Spock - that he's stronger than a human. The interesting thing about Vulcans is their faith in logic and their belief that emotions are bad. That's what distinguishes a Vulcan from a human. If a Vulcan was just as strong as a human, it wouldn't suddenly become less interesting or less unique.

Now, as far as WotC is concerned, they've basically punted here and left it to the group. Groups that want interesting, unique races? They can have that - they just have to do the work. Those that don't really care? They're served too. IOW, making races interesting is the job of the table, not the rulebooks.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Back to the race thing which is a much more interesting conversation.

The notion that mechanics make races interesting is partially true. After all, novel mechanics like Halfling Luck, for example, do distinguish halflings from, say, elves. However, I was mostly responding to the notion that floating ASI's somehow reduced a race's uniqueness.

That's like saying Spock is really interesting because he has a +2 Strength. That's like literally the least interesting thing about Spock - that he's stronger than a human. The interesting thing about Vulcans is their faith in logic and their belief that emotions are bad. That's what distinguishes a Vulcan from a human. If a Vulcan was just as strong as a human, it wouldn't suddenly become less interesting or less unique.

Now, as far as WotC is concerned, they've basically punted here and left it to the group. Groups that want interesting, unique races? They can have that - they just have to do the work. Those that don't really care? They're served too. IOW, making races interesting is the job of the table, not the rulebooks.

This kind of decision though basically makes 6E a nonstarter for many of us (especially when we can play the old editions that have races with meaningful mechanics baked in)

 

[Emberashh]

It's not that there aren't different kinds of rules. It's that there's no real need for a distinction.

In game design there is. Its a difference that matters for quite a lot, actually, as a games design should be placing the bulk of the complexity within the Rules.

Content shouldn't be adding additional complexity that isn't a part of the Rules, and where it inevitably must should be kept minimal and worthwhile.

Something like a Class having a unique core mechanic of its own, for example, makes sense in this regard. If a Warrior has their Mighty Deed, its a worthwhile complexity thats being added within the Content of the game, and it isn't egregious that its there.

Whereas while something like the 5e Druid requiring a wholly separate book from the PHB to play violates that criteria; while one can debate the worthwhileness of Generic vs Specific Statblocks from a complexity standpoint, one can't really argue that much of the classes required material is in a book thats not meant for Players is a good thing.

But beyond that, making the distinction is also just a good design philosophy, especially in translating an entire Game, Rules and Content together, into something teachable.

Rules can be taught and internalized, and then built upon by Content, keeping the learning curve nice and smooth.

Additional Rules introduced by Content, if kept efficient (ie, minimal and worthwhile), won't violate that learning curve. The Mighty Deed in DCC for example is a pretty simple Rule. As part of your roll, roll a die of such and such size. If you roll at least a 3, you gain the use of a Mighty Deed, which might be improvised or might correlate to some result on a Deed table.

Ezpz.

Whereas in the Druid, one not only has to learn the already pretty complex Full Caster framework, but also has to become accomodated with the Monster Manual and learn the ins and outs of the various beasts available to them, which in turn must be located and cross checked with the Druid rules to ensure they can be used.

Thats a lot and isn't terribly worthwhile compared to a (good) Generic statblock system, or to just printing the eligible Beasts in the PHB for ease of reference.

I don't know FATAL, but I'm pretty confident that if I wanted to come up with some different rule or in some cases no rule for something, I could do it

FATAL is where the "roll for anal circumference" meme comes from. Its not so much that you couldn't, mind, but that you wouldn't want to. Because you'd quickly realize you don't want to play the game at all upon touching the book. (And god help us if you do want to play for any reason other than sheer academic masochism)

My point is that even in D&D you can do away with 1d20+ modifiers and still play the game. We can flip a quarter to see who wins, or if we want to get more complex, each side flips a number of quarters equal to their bonuses and the most heads wins.

But at that point you are genuinely not playing DND.

Admittedly, I haven't thought much on the idea of not using the core mechanic, but still using everything else in the Game, but with how much relies on the Core mechanic, Im not certain how well that would work out, if at all.

Either way, you'd ultimately still be replacing the Core mechanic, not just dropping it outright and using nothing in its place.

But even if you did, at that point you're basically doing some sort of weird FKR-DND frankenstein monster. And even then, you're still technically replacing the resolution mechanic with common sense.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Occasionally a +2 bonus matters, but typically you won't even notice that it is there. At low levels that amounts to about 1 extra hit every 3ish fights(assuming 3 round fights, you will see 1 more hit every 10 rolls on average).

Bounded accuracy has made stat bonuses mean very little. You don't need to rush for a 20 when a 16 works very well and you won't typically notice the +2 anyway.

i don't play 5E so I can't comment on the bonuses for that edition. But in the past I have found the various bonuses for races useful and meaningful

 

[Hussar]

This kind of decision though basically makes 6E a nonstarter for many of us (especially when we can play the old editions that have races with meaningful mechanics baked in)

I'm glad 6e is a non-starter for you. Me too. I don't play games that don't exist.

OTOH, when you bake in "meaningful" mechanics (and I'm putting scare quotes there deliberately since I find almost all the race mechanics to be pretty much meaningless) into a given race, and refusing to allow any variation from that, you are insisting that everyone else must play the way you play.

When we have floating ASI's, you can STILL play the way you want to, but, now, you don't get to force your preferences on everyone else. Everyone wins.

Note, none of the mechanics for races - Halfling luck, darkvision, etc. - has been changed. The only thing that's been changed is the inherent stat bonuses.

Like I said, if a +2 Dexterity is the only thing that makes your elf interesting... well...

 

[Bedrockgames]

OTOH, when you bake in "meaningful" mechanics (and I'm putting scare quotes there deliberately since I find almost all the race mechanics to be pretty much meaningless) into a given race, and refusing to allow any variation from that, you are insisting that everyone else must play the way you play.

The game ought to have some amount of definition though on this front. I think this is just a matter of having the races have a concrete set of mechanics in the game (so that choosing the race has meaning). There are plenty of games where this stuff is customizable. Most of the time, I tend to play such games. But I think the thing that makes D&D work is baking all that stuff into race and into class. When I go to D&D that is what I look for

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's like saying Spock is really interesting because he has a +2 Strength. That's like literally the least interesting thing about Spock - that he's stronger than a human. The interesting thing about Vulcans is their faith in logic and their belief that emotions are bad. That's what distinguishes a Vulcan from a human. If a Vulcan was just as strong as a human, it wouldn't suddenly become less interesting or less unique.

There are a lot of things that are essential about a race like Vulcans that doesn't have to do with a stat bonus. That said those kinds of bonuses are important reminders that this isn't just a human with funny ears, there are genuine physiological differences.