Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4142871" data-attributes="member: 1054">As often as the players ask if there is one and I think it's a good idea. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And these 'guidelines' differ from 'rules' how, other than by being vague?Personally, I think &quot;Let players do things with a simple check provided what they do is less effective than anything for which there are actual rules for&quot; to be REALLY bad design, and I strongly doubt that's how the game will actually be written. I just see a lot of confusion. Either &quot;non rules actions&quot; are always inferior to &quot;rules actions&quot;, in which case, hardly anyone will use them, or they're a badly exploitable loophole (&quot;Why waste a pick on 'Trip' when I can just make an attack vs. reflex?&quot;)I keep telling myself we've seen only a dozen or so pages of rules out of 600+. There's got to be a lot more real crunch in those books than we're seeing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4142871, member: 1054"] As often as the players ask if there is one and I think it's a good idea. :) And these 'guidelines' differ from 'rules' how, other than by being vague? Personally, I think "Let players do things with a simple check provided what they do is less effective than anything for which there are actual rules for" to be REALLY bad design, and I strongly doubt that's how the game will actually be written. I just see a lot of confusion. Either "non rules actions" are always inferior to "rules actions", in which case, hardly anyone will use them, or they're a badly exploitable loophole ("Why waste a pick on 'Trip' when I can just make an attack vs. reflex?") I keep telling myself we've seen only a dozen or so pages of rules out of 600+. There's got to be a lot more real crunch in those books than we're seeing. [/QUOTE]

Verification