Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6230059" data-attributes="member: 22779">&quot;I like it&quot; is not proof of good design.&nbsp; Nor is &quot;I don't like it&quot;, for that matter.&nbsp; Vague mechanics with no guidance as to how to interpret that vagueness is bad game design.&nbsp; In rules light games, for example, you generally get one (or a small number) of baseline rules that would be applied in a variety of situations.&nbsp; So, in a rules light system, hazardous would be a keyword that would link to a general rule that would be applied.&nbsp; What you don't have is this sort of trailing mechanic that doesn't actually lead anywhere.&nbsp; What does &quot;hazardous&quot; mean in context?&nbsp; Well, we have no idea.&nbsp; I might say it's X or Y.&nbsp; Thus, it's a poorly designed mechanic.Rulings not rules does not mean that we should go back to poorly written rules that lead nowhere.&nbsp; Rulings are based on sound principles, that are clearly defined by the system.&nbsp; &quot;Hazardous&quot; can mean anything.&nbsp; Does it mean that my character might get cancer 20 years down the line?&nbsp; That I spontaneously explode?&nbsp; What?&nbsp; A better example would be something like Jumping.&nbsp; In D&amp;D, it's a pretty common thing for a character to jump.&nbsp; Jump over a pit, through a window, whatnot.&nbsp; This is a pretty basic action.&nbsp; Yet, for the first two (or more depending on how you count) editions (OD&amp;D and AD&amp;D 1e) you cannot actually answer that question.&nbsp; There are no jump mechanics.&nbsp; 2e kinda tried, by having a jump proficiency, but, since there's no rules for jumping without that proficiency, we're still pretty much left in the dark.&nbsp; 3e steps up and with some pretty simple mechanics (skills, plus untrained skill rules) allows everyone playing to answer the question.Right there, that's better design.&nbsp; Other games handle it differently.&nbsp; It might be, &quot;You can jump whatever the DM feels is appropriate&quot; but, at least it's handled.&nbsp; There isn't a giant gaping hole in the mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6230059, member: 22779"] "I like it" is not proof of good design. Nor is "I don't like it", for that matter. Vague mechanics with no guidance as to how to interpret that vagueness is bad game design. In rules light games, for example, you generally get one (or a small number) of baseline rules that would be applied in a variety of situations. So, in a rules light system, hazardous would be a keyword that would link to a general rule that would be applied. What you don't have is this sort of trailing mechanic that doesn't actually lead anywhere. What does "hazardous" mean in context? Well, we have no idea. I might say it's X or Y. Thus, it's a poorly designed mechanic. Rulings not rules does not mean that we should go back to poorly written rules that lead nowhere. Rulings are based on sound principles, that are clearly defined by the system. "Hazardous" can mean anything. Does it mean that my character might get cancer 20 years down the line? That I spontaneously explode? What? A better example would be something like Jumping. In D&D, it's a pretty common thing for a character to jump. Jump over a pit, through a window, whatnot. This is a pretty basic action. Yet, for the first two (or more depending on how you count) editions (OD&D and AD&D 1e) you cannot actually answer that question. There are no jump mechanics. 2e kinda tried, by having a jump proficiency, but, since there's no rules for jumping without that proficiency, we're still pretty much left in the dark. 3e steps up and with some pretty simple mechanics (skills, plus untrained skill rules) allows everyone playing to answer the question. Right there, that's better design. Other games handle it differently. It might be, "You can jump whatever the DM feels is appropriate" but, at least it's handled. There isn't a giant gaping hole in the mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification