Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5125105" data-attributes="member: 4937">The point is indeed that some might say that the rules aren't complete and will clamor for rules expansions that meet the specific needs of their campaign.  I don't need rules for psionics and epic levels.  The rules are 'complete' from my perspective with out them.  Some other DM might say, "How can you call these rules complete; they have no rules for psionics or epic level play?"Sure, you could probably trim D&D down to three modified classes, make races have no impact but flavor, provide rules for only the first 5 levels of play, provide only a few sample generic monsters as a guideline to further monster construction, dump the skill system, get rid of feats, leave environmental hazards to be improvised by the DM, and get the rules down under 60 pages.  And it would still be recognizably D&D.But the question would be, is this a 'complete' set of rules?  How quickly would people clamor for expansion of the rules to cover the things we've clearly left out?  Even more important from my perspective of what 'rules' mean, how quickly would the real functional set of rules grow under such a system as the DM ad hoc new house rules to handle things not covered under the formal written rules?  Just because things aren't formally written down, doesn't mean that they aren't rules.</blockquote>