Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5965824" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem is, what does etiquette actually do?&nbsp; If it has no actual effect in the game, and resolves nothing, why is it even there?&nbsp; I roll my etiquette check and succeed.&nbsp; Ok, I know which fork to use at dinner.&nbsp; Does this actually have any impact on the game beyond whatever DM fiat decides?Why not actually have social mechanics that DM's can deviate from?&nbsp; Sure, you prefer a lighter touch.&nbsp; No problem.&nbsp; Don't use the mechanics.&nbsp; Like I said, it should be made absolutely crystal clear that you do not have to use the mechanics presented.How can it be considered good design for mechanics to be so complicated and counter-intuitive that you cannot actually apply those rules without spending considerable amounts of time reading and rereading those rules every time they're going to be used.&nbsp; I gave three examples - 1e Initiative rules (arcane, byzantine and so complicated that even Gary Gygax didn't use them), 3e grapple rules (another system so overcomplex that it remained a sticking point throughout TWO iterations of 3e, and still caused problems at large numbers of tables) and the 4e incorporeal undead + weakness (a problem resolved in later MM's).&nbsp; That you can change a rule does not make a given rule good design.&nbsp; A well designed mechanic shouldn't need to be changed, even unintentionally.&nbsp; A well designed mechanic should be intuitive and easily understood.&nbsp; Isn't that pretty much what well designed means?&quot;Oh, well, sure the rules say that, but we always ignored those rules and did this&quot; is condemnation of any given rule, not praise.&nbsp; If you ignored that rule, it's because that rule was poorly designed.&nbsp; That or you are deliberately changing baselines (which is perfectly fine).&nbsp; But, ignoring or changing a rule because the rule was so borked to begin with that virtually no one could play by the rules means that that rule needed to back to the workshop.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5965824, member: 22779"] The problem is, what does etiquette actually do? If it has no actual effect in the game, and resolves nothing, why is it even there? I roll my etiquette check and succeed. Ok, I know which fork to use at dinner. Does this actually have any impact on the game beyond whatever DM fiat decides? Why not actually have social mechanics that DM's can deviate from? Sure, you prefer a lighter touch. No problem. Don't use the mechanics. Like I said, it should be made absolutely crystal clear that you do not have to use the mechanics presented. How can it be considered good design for mechanics to be so complicated and counter-intuitive that you cannot actually apply those rules without spending considerable amounts of time reading and rereading those rules every time they're going to be used. I gave three examples - 1e Initiative rules (arcane, byzantine and so complicated that even Gary Gygax didn't use them), 3e grapple rules (another system so overcomplex that it remained a sticking point throughout TWO iterations of 3e, and still caused problems at large numbers of tables) and the 4e incorporeal undead + weakness (a problem resolved in later MM's). That you can change a rule does not make a given rule good design. A well designed mechanic shouldn't need to be changed, even unintentionally. A well designed mechanic should be intuitive and easily understood. Isn't that pretty much what well designed means? "Oh, well, sure the rules say that, but we always ignored those rules and did this" is condemnation of any given rule, not praise. If you ignored that rule, it's because that rule was poorly designed. That or you are deliberately changing baselines (which is perfectly fine). But, ignoring or changing a rule because the rule was so borked to begin with that virtually no one could play by the rules means that that rule needed to back to the workshop. [/QUOTE]

Verification