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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5899389" data-attributes="member: 92511">Yes. By varying combinations of 1s and 0s. Thought that was obviously implied. But that's what I get for assuming, again.  Your position, and bare with me since I'm kinda not following, is that table-top RPGs should follow computer programming design so as to not have "faults"? That will never be achievable.Perfection is an ideal, perhaps a goal, but ultimately in the realm of humanity, a myth. In the realm of mathematics (within which I would include computer programming), perhaps not. Something comes out exactly "right" or it doesn't work/is "wrong" (my deplorable marks in advanced physics are a testament to that! lol).But since D&D is a [table top] game of imagination and creativity and not a game of mathematics, perfection [no faults] is just a pipe dream.More and more rules hard-coded into/mandatory in the "program" of the basic/core game is not going to make this any more achievable.Accept it for what it is, options [as a feature, not a bug...this is NOT a computer program] and all, and have fun with it.No, it seems you do not. I wish I could explain it better. But I'm at something of a loss. It seems that simply saying "game design" translates to your ears as "programming"...a byproduct of the computer driven generation/culture we find ourselves in, perhaps. There are rules within game design. But rules are not game design...no, I guess that doesn't help clear things up as much as it sounded like it would in my head. hmmm.If you are saying that we need rules XYZ built in to the core game, then yes, it is harmful for those who prefer not to [want to] use those rules. Then you are advocating more DM fiat because it will be necessary to willfully ignore or change the rules for this or that group to play the way they like. Whereas putting them "off to the side", as it were, still in the book, and saying "Use them or this or that bit of them as much or little as you wish" is not harmful to anyone. Nor encouraging DM fiat because it is "the rules" that you can play this game, right ch'eeuh, OR use xyz elements [optional modules] to make the game you want more by adding or swapping out abc.Yes. But Color theory for one area of design is not at all mandatory, all- encompassing or translates well into others, as it seems you are arguing pro taking the tenets of software programming and applying it to RPG game design.The color palette of the year might say "chocolate brown" is the hip/chic/evocative for X/go to color in the Y industry does not make it a good color to use in other design areas.Do industry Y and industry Z both use Color Theory? Yes. Are they immediately applicable/swappable across those industries? For the purposes/betterment of the design of both? Most definitely not.    Yes, all rules are essentially, "yes, you can" or "no, you can't." How  does that play into "here's this batch of rules to add to you game if  you want 'yes, you can/no, you can't' for this element of play OR leave  them out if you prefer?No. Nothing is. But, it sounds like your arguments are advocating that you want as LITTLE DM fiat as possible. So, again, how is adding/tacking things on you want, while others might not, going to somehow ADD to DM fiat? DM fiat will always be permissible...it is in any game (well, not computer games, I suppose, unless you go back in and reprogram them). I'm not really concerned or arguing for that.Case in point, I like alignment. My players like alignment. We have not seen nearly the amount of guff in play that others on these sites claim with it. I use alignment (9-point) in my game world/setting. It's built in. there are orders and religions and alignment plays into all of them. It is color and flavor that I/we enjoy.Regardless of how 5e stipulates alignment to be included, I will continue to use 9-point (and smack down paladins and druids that step outta line <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />). I assume at least 1 method will be 9-point, but if the default comes out as "D&D 5e has no Alignment rules in game, but here's some other options", I am in no way DM fiatting it or "breaking the rules" to use them.If the system says "This is Alignment in 5e and that's it!" ("1" or "0") Then, yeah, I need to "fiat" the alignment system in.In my experience "People" have not stopped using ad-hoc rulings. But, as with everything on the interwebs, individual experience varies, of course. Broad swathes of what "people" are doing are almost never true for most things.This system [5e]...with modules to add for this, that or the other set of "rules" you want in your games...would/could/should be one that does not "force them" to handle this or that element in play in any particular way other than how they like. I don't believe I said it did.  Offering you modules of rules you want in your game is "limiting [your] full range of possibilities" how, exactly?I sincerely disagree that that is the definition of "good design". "Good programming", perhaps. But see my last post regarding design =/= programming.If your game/group says we're using this module or that module, that requires DM fiat how exactly? Now, if you adopt XYZ rules and your DM makes an ad-hoc ruling against the module's rules anyway...that's on the DM and to be handled with your group. That's not on the system. Nor do I see any way you could hard-code it into the game without, again, pissing/turning a LOT of people off.But, again...not the point of the thread...and I am as much at fault as others in keeping up this discussion. Feel free to respond to what I have asked or pointed out here...but other than that, could we move on please?Another thread to debate this further would be more than welcome. But not in this thread.Please and thank you.--SD</blockquote>

Verification