Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5776820" data-attributes="member: 3887">First comment: would you like a pony too? <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=":)" /> Everything is better with ponies. And monkeys. What about &quot;x spells per day per level&quot; for casters, ie Vancian magic? The trouble with this is getting people to agree on what, exactly, supports verisimilitude. This is best left to DM rulings at the table. Trying to encode this into the official rules as anything more than a list of helpful suggestions will significantly increase their complexity of the system. Which means significantly slowing down play. This is all cool stuff... but the more you rely on explicit rules to handle these situations --as opposed to handling them abstractly and/or with on-the-spot rulings-- the more cumbersome the system becomes.Meaning it will play slower.&nbsp; More detailed mechanics = less speed. I sound like a broken record, don't I? This would be great -- just don't include a universal framework for &quot;building&quot; monsters a la 3e. I'm all for lasting ill effects. But I'm against any implementation of buffs/debuffs that has you recalculating on the fly during combat, or has you playing the bonus stacking game. It's too time consuming. Like other people said, option paralysis is a bad thing. And the more explicit mechanical options you have, the greater the tendency to view everything occurring in-game through the lens of the rules, ie for some people, the options themselves break immersion. The rules can't evaluate the specifics of a situation. Only the DM can. Which means &quot;rulings not rules&quot;. &nbsp;Absolutely!&nbsp;Savage Worlds kinda does this... it's a nice approach, but I wonder if it's too different from traditional D&amp;D. You can certainly flatten the power scale, to something closer to AD&amp;D than 3e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 5776820, member: 3887"] First comment: would you like a pony too? :) Everything is better with ponies. And monkeys. What about "x spells per day per level" for casters, ie Vancian magic? The trouble with this is getting people to agree on what, exactly, supports verisimilitude. This is best left to DM rulings at the table. Trying to encode this into the official rules as anything more than a list of helpful suggestions will significantly increase their complexity of the system. Which means significantly slowing down play. This is all cool stuff... but the more you rely on explicit rules to handle these situations --as opposed to handling them abstractly and/or with on-the-spot rulings-- the more cumbersome the system becomes. Meaning it will play slower. More detailed mechanics = less speed. I sound like a broken record, don't I? This would be great -- just don't include a universal framework for "building" monsters a la 3e. I'm all for lasting ill effects. But I'm against any implementation of buffs/debuffs that has you recalculating on the fly during combat, or has you playing the bonus stacking game. It's too time consuming. Like other people said, option paralysis is a bad thing. And the more explicit mechanical options you have, the greater the tendency to view everything occurring in-game through the lens of the rules, ie for some people, the options themselves break immersion. The rules can't evaluate the specifics of a situation. Only the DM can. Which means "rulings not rules". Absolutely! Savage Worlds kinda does this... it's a nice approach, but I wonder if it's too different from traditional D&D. You can certainly flatten the power scale, to something closer to AD&D than 3e. [/QUOTE]

Verification