Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 1393200" data-attributes="member: 3424">I like rules-heavy systems provided the rules are:1. Simple2. Comprehensive3. Clear4. ConsistentBy simple, I mean easy to understand and apply. For example, the rules are generally simple in 3.5e: the basic mechanic is to roll d20, add bonuses and match the result to a target number.  The methods of determining bonuses and target number are also generally well-defined.By comprehensive, I mean that the rules should cover all circumstances that arise in play.  If my character (as a player) or one of the players' characters (as a DM) wants to try something, there ought to a rule that tells me how to resolve it.  The key issue here is a resolution mechanic.  Whether I agree with it is another issue (see meta-rules flavor, below).By clear, I mean that there should be no ambiguities or different interpretations for a rule.  A good rules system should not need a separate forum to discuss how the rules work.By consistent, I mean that there should be some internal logic to the rules.  The same rule should work the same way for essentially the same circumstance, e.g. one creature's heat aura should essentially work in the same way as another creature's heat aura - this was not always the case in some games.Many rules-heavy systems are not good because they fail one or more of these criteria.  Comprehensiveness often works at cross-purposes to simplicity, clarity and consistency, for example.  Nonetheless, I feel rules are important because it gives the DMs and players a sense of what to expect, ensures situations are resolved fairly and with fewer arguments, and better simulates a functioning world.  You can tell I'm generally Lawful, can't you?Meta-rules Flavor: Some of the objections that have been voiced to the rules seem to me to be just a disagreement about meta-rules flavor.  If a person disagrees with a rule that prevents wizards from casting spells in armor, it may simply be because he wants a different flavored game, and thus, a different rule, which allows armored wizards. Not agreeing with what the rules say is quite different from believing there should be no rules.</blockquote>

Verification