Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8397178" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I understand your intention isn't advocacy. However, also from the OPSo a question might obviously arise- if it was all so simple, if it was all just some FK &quot;rulings not rules&quot; with a neutral referee, why do we see the explosion of rules? Why do we see Gygax, at the beginning of 1e, insist that the standardized rules are to be followed? I am sure others might have their own reasons and speculations, but I would put it simply- money. There is very little commercial return in telling people, &quot;Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice.&quot; On the other hand ... selling rules? And more rules? There ... there you get into the serious money.You can say you aren't advocating for one style over the other, but if you see no benefit in rules and see the existence of increasing rules as only being because the game designers wish to make a profit, then you are making a very strong statement against a game run by rules. If you truly believe that the reason rules have increased beyond &quot;Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice.&quot; is only because of profit, then you are saying that people who use a different approach are being mislead about the value they see in rules. Which is why I am trying to act as a bit of an advocate for a level of rules. There is a value in them, but you have not engaged in discussing the other side and the value of rules at all. Or if you have, I have completely missed it, and I apologize for missing you addressing both sides of the discussion. But you can't only discuss the value of a ruleless system, because such a system also has downsides, and those downsides are addressed by a system with robust rules. I think the best way forward is a balanced approach. And I'm going to push back against the idea that rules are negative to the game experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8397178, member: 6801228"] I understand your intention isn't advocacy. However, also from the OP [B][I]So a question might obviously arise[/I][/B][I]- if it was all so simple, if it was all just some FK "rulings not rules" with a neutral referee, [B]why do we see the explosion of rules? [/B]Why do we see Gygax, at the beginning of 1e, insist that the standardized rules are to be followed?[B] I am sure others might have their own reasons and speculations, but I would put it simply- money. [/B]There is very little commercial return in telling people, "Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice." On the other hand ... selling rules? And more rules? There ... there you get into the serious money.[/I] You can say you aren't advocating for one style over the other, but if you see no benefit in rules and see the existence of increasing rules as only being because the game designers wish to make a profit, then you are making a very strong statement against a game run by rules. If you truly believe that the reason rules have increased beyond "[I]Make up stuff. Then a referee will tell you if it's okay. Maybe roll some dice."[/I] is only because of profit, then you are saying that people who use a different approach are being mislead about the value they see in rules. Which is why I am trying to act as a bit of an advocate for a level of rules. There is a value in them, but you have not engaged in discussing the other side and the value of rules at all. Or if you have, I have completely missed it, and I apologize for missing you addressing both sides of the discussion. But you can't only discuss the value of a ruleless system, because such a system also has downsides, and those downsides are addressed by a system with robust rules. I think the best way forward is a balanced approach. And I'm going to push back against the idea that rules are negative to the game experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification