Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4481260" data-attributes="member: 22779">I was rereading some of my Dragon magazines and came across an interesting reply from the editor regarding a letter sent in about an article in a previous issue on firearms.&nbsp; The letter was (very rightly) complaining about the reloading times and rules of the firearms in the article.&nbsp; They were way, way too fast.&nbsp; Inhumanly fast.&nbsp; The response, in my mind, is very enlightening:And this gets back to the point I was trying to make about what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game work?&nbsp; How far are you willing to go to make things function at the table?Take a separate issue that most people don't get too fussed about - facing.&nbsp; 1e and 2e had facing rules; the shield rules came into effect depending on where the baddies were.&nbsp; 3e despite being far more minis dependent than earlier editions, ejected facing.&nbsp; And, for the most part, I think people weren't too worried about it.&nbsp; At least, I missed any large kerfuffle about facing.&nbsp; You were assumed to be turning about many times during your round and that was good enough.Only, it wasn't.&nbsp; Because, while there were no mechanical facing rules, you still had long and narrow, or short and fat base sizes.&nbsp; Horses being a prime example.&nbsp; Having bases that were not regular shaped meant you suddenly had facing again.&nbsp; Not too many DM's were going to let you charge you horse sideways so you could block the enemies better.&nbsp; Yet, if there was no facing, no &quot;front or back&quot; then I should be able to do that.3.5 got rid of the whole thing and went to square bases.&nbsp; And, the problems started.&nbsp; People were willing to eject facing rules, but, a number of people were not willing to sacrifice the idea that long, skinny creatures should have long, skinny bases.&nbsp; You saw a fair number of complaints over the years on this exact issue.&nbsp; You cannot have the massed charge, that sort of thing.And that's what it comes down to.&nbsp; Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away?&nbsp; At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun?&nbsp; This is something we're not going to agree on.&nbsp; For some, very little can be sacrificed.&nbsp; There is a very low tolerance to hand waving.&nbsp; For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away.That's how I'm starting to view this anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4481260, member: 22779"] I was rereading some of my Dragon magazines and came across an interesting reply from the editor regarding a letter sent in about an article in a previous issue on firearms. The letter was (very rightly) complaining about the reloading times and rules of the firearms in the article. They were way, way too fast. Inhumanly fast. The response, in my mind, is very enlightening: And this gets back to the point I was trying to make about what you are willing to sacrifice to make the game work? How far are you willing to go to make things function at the table? Take a separate issue that most people don't get too fussed about - facing. 1e and 2e had facing rules; the shield rules came into effect depending on where the baddies were. 3e despite being far more minis dependent than earlier editions, ejected facing. And, for the most part, I think people weren't too worried about it. At least, I missed any large kerfuffle about facing. You were assumed to be turning about many times during your round and that was good enough. Only, it wasn't. Because, while there were no mechanical facing rules, you still had long and narrow, or short and fat base sizes. Horses being a prime example. Having bases that were not regular shaped meant you suddenly had facing again. Not too many DM's were going to let you charge you horse sideways so you could block the enemies better. Yet, if there was no facing, no "front or back" then I should be able to do that. 3.5 got rid of the whole thing and went to square bases. And, the problems started. People were willing to eject facing rules, but, a number of people were not willing to sacrifice the idea that long, skinny creatures should have long, skinny bases. You saw a fair number of complaints over the years on this exact issue. You cannot have the massed charge, that sort of thing. And that's what it comes down to. Where is your threshold for what can be abstracted away? At what point does sacrificing for gameplay become less fun? This is something we're not going to agree on. For some, very little can be sacrificed. There is a very low tolerance to hand waving. For others, gameplay is more important and lots can be abstracted away. That's how I'm starting to view this anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification