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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5890659" data-attributes="member: 59506">How long do I think a set of mechanics would be to present an optional falling damage mechanic? How much space do I think it will take up? Very small. Likely no more than a paragraph. How many changes do I think it would take to make it satisfactory? (and I'm assuming you mean changes to the core system...) Practically none. Now to the rest of the post. No. You didn't answer why you continue to argue this, or at least didn't answer the whole question but only addressed part of it. You say you have no ideological horse in this race. That it's purely about not wanting mechanics in the game that may mess up it's core structure in possibly widespread and unforeseen ways. That last part is a completely valid point and concern, but unfortunately, that hasn't been your predominant argument against it, or at least not your only arguement against it. You do argue not just from a standpoint of it's effects on the future edition, but also from an ideological standpoint. You continue to address peoples logic and preference to wanting it, especially through the use of the Flying Snowman concept, rather than predominantly from it's game effects. Introducing the Flying Snowmen concept as support for your argument, is making an ideological argument. An argument that seems to have become the main point of your position (at least in these last couple of pages anyways). Maybe you really don't care about what happens at other people's tables (that's not for me to judge), but it does seem you care quite a bit about what's happening inside other gamers minds. You seem to care very much about their reasoning on this subject, and take issue with the seeming (to you) illogic of their choices. And I'm honestly curious as to why? In answer to your question "Who cares?", I'd say that it seems you do...and very much so. As to why I'm curious...well, it does have a bit to do with this:  Now, I don't agree that it's okay for anyone on ENWorld to hammer or ridicule anybody (excepting Mods). But maybe there is some validity to the community pointing out such responses and behavior to posters who do so. As long as that's done in a non-confrontational and respectful manner. So, as part of that community, and with the above tacitly approved idea in mind, I'd posit that continuing an argument for so many pages, with at least an equal basis in personal ideology as well as it's effects on the future game, is a form of flipping out. Maybe not a quick, emphasized, and explosive flip out, but a flip out nonetheless...just a slow burning and persistent one. I'd also say that nobody in this thread has put forth or recomended a "giant bolus of mechanics" (or more accurately, I haven't noticed anyone doing that). That seems to be an exaggeration of what people have stated in this thread. I would consider exaggeration in order to reinforce an argument as a sign of flipping out also. Even a mechanics module for dealing with the 20 archer problem, wouldn't necessarily have a far reaching effect on the core system, nor be a giant bolus of mechanics. It could probably be done in a page or two and described as "How to tweak for a Grim n' Gritty game" or "How to introduce Real-World Realism to the game": including some basics like lowering hit points; increasing damage (perhaps even more so for specific weapon types); adding save or die rolls; and how, where, and when to apply these mechanical changes and their likely implications. The core system does not need to be designed with these ideas in mind. Instead, the modules need to be designed with the core system in mind. Though I do believe that most of us still in this conversation have a good enough grasp of RPG game mechanic design to already know that. I feel such concepts being codifed in the rules, as modules, is important so that they are available on DDI, and can be applied to character creation, monster creation, encounter planning, etc. That opens up the usefulness of the DDI tools to the significant enough portion of the gamer community who want these type of elements.   So, especially considering that actual effects to the core system have not been expressed except as a generalized hypothetical, and with no real examples or any actual evidence...is it necessary to question people's personal reasoning in order to protect the game from being gummed up, rather than just/only addressing the actual potential game effects...?</blockquote>

Verification