Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5081794" data-attributes="member: 54707">I can use two analogies for my own situation.A game (that is to say a game system) to me is like a basic architectural design.A world to me is my own design, based upon certain aspects of the original, basic archetitecturla draft.So when designing a world or setting or milieu I take from the original draft whatever is necessary that doesn't in any way interfere with my world. If it does interfere with my world I discard it. So generally speaking I discard far more than I adopt or create. As far as rules go. If I could run any world with two or less pages of rules, and far more imagination, then I would do so.Then again, a game (that is to say a game system) to me is like the prototype of an invention/schematic.A world (setting, milieu) to me is my own design, based upon certain aspects of the prototype.If the prototype is sufficient or useful then I will retain those aspects of the design, and discard anything that is superfluous or of unnecessary complexity. In this way I whittle away or excise or dispose of anything I think unnecessary or likely to promote system friction or to hamper subtlety or fluid action. then point to me is to reduce a system, any system (games included) to the least amount of complexity at which it still operates at peak efficiency. That holds true for science, invention, art, games, mechanics, you name it. Unless there is some ulterior or adjunct or ancillary motive, to me the intention is simplicity of both function and design.So for the most part I tend to hosuerule by extraction rather than addition.If I add on it tends to be with compact component-like elements. That I can add in or break off form the underlying structure as necessary or needed. A long time ago I had my fill with complexity when it comes to gaming systems and mental frameworks. I find information and innovation a far more satisfying and flexible way to govern any situation than mere rules (which by very definition and function often tends to suppress rather than advance innovation and information.).To me role play is far more often suppressed rather than enhanced by rule complications.So to me the rule about rules is simply this: Any rule that advances and makes the system more flexible and capable is worth retaining, any rule that adds friction or detracts from capability (within the overall operational framework and objective) is expendable. Rules only exist to enhance the functionality of the system, not the system for the functionality of the rules. I am therefore rules skeptical. They have to prove their value to me before I think of them as worthwhile. I do not automatically ascribe to them any real legitimacy.I won't say that exactly because I generally just take existing game systems as a basis and then develop hybrids from them. But I will say I have done far more changing and alteration and adaptation to D&D than any other RPG.I'm not sure exactly all that this implies, but it might be a good subject for a separate thread.</blockquote>

Verification