Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4035545" data-attributes="member: 3192">Interesting ideas.&nbsp; I'd like to first point out that source material - books, movies, history, myth, whatever - is where I get inspiration from.&nbsp; RPG rulesets may be an inspiration for playing make believe games, but I really don't think they are necessary with the whole world here. Your main point, that even a bad rule is better than no rule, doesn't really fit in how parse things. With a bad rule, one all my players have read about, they are repulsed from even trying the option. If there is no rule, and again they know, then again they skip it any attempt.&nbsp; Blind spots.&nbsp; In truth, both mean I have to make my own rule. But that's basically what I'm doing anyway no matter how good a rule is.&nbsp; As a referee, my job is to use rules I've decided upon to present as consistent and intriguing a world as I can.&nbsp; Predetermining rules beforehand is a good idea.&nbsp; And published rulesets can go a long way in aiding that endeavor.&nbsp; But there is just too much ground to cover.&nbsp; No designer or DM has perfect prediction of players' predilections. (say that 3x fast <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )&nbsp; At best I have a workable ruleset that enables me to run the game as best I can.&nbsp; If it helps me facilitate most of the desires of the players playing, that's enough really.&nbsp; Just as I don't need an exactingly detailed setting to memorize what lies where, neither do I need a ruleset attempting to cover my players boundlessly zany ideas with only specific and situational options rather than those and suggestions built for on the fly adjudication.&nbsp; A good ref has to be able to come up with rules on their own and a good game assists with that.Really, this is the same sort of thing that has gone on since the beginning: a breaking out of artificial barriers.&nbsp; How many times even in the last few months have we heard folks begging for a rule to be changed?&nbsp; Or stay the same?&nbsp; Or be made an &quot;official core rule&quot;?&nbsp; It's kind of ridiculous that designers have more pull at a gaming table than the participants themselves.&nbsp; Not that I begrudge the designers anything.&nbsp; Any help is great.&nbsp; It's that seeing outside the box, which was so essential to early play, is still going on in groups figuring out they can play however the wish.&nbsp; A bad rule or no rule doesn't stop that.I started a thread awhile back in the Rules Forum on how 3e would handle baseball, just as a test to get in the habit of extrapolating d20 you understand.&nbsp; Sadly I had no takers.&nbsp; Constructing the initial post though was eye opening on just how many basic physical actions simply aren't covered under d20 and are never thought twice about.&nbsp; I prefer the motto: &quot;You can try anything.&nbsp; But I can't guarantee it'll work how you think it will.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 4035545, member: 3192"] Interesting ideas. I'd like to first point out that source material - books, movies, history, myth, whatever - is where I get inspiration from. RPG rulesets may be an inspiration for playing make believe games, but I really don't think they are necessary with the whole world here. Your main point, that even a bad rule is better than no rule, doesn't really fit in how parse things. With a bad rule, one all my players have read about, they are repulsed from even trying the option. If there is no rule, and again they know, then again they skip it any attempt. Blind spots. In truth, both mean I have to make my own rule. But that's basically what I'm doing anyway no matter how good a rule is. As a referee, my job is to use rules I've decided upon to present as consistent and intriguing a world as I can. Predetermining rules beforehand is a good idea. And published rulesets can go a long way in aiding that endeavor. But there is just too much ground to cover. No designer or DM has perfect prediction of players' predilections. (say that 3x fast :) ) At best I have a workable ruleset that enables me to run the game as best I can. If it helps me facilitate most of the desires of the players playing, that's enough really. Just as I don't need an exactingly detailed setting to memorize what lies where, neither do I need a ruleset attempting to cover my players boundlessly zany ideas with only specific and situational options rather than those and suggestions built for on the fly adjudication. A good ref has to be able to come up with rules on their own and a good game assists with that. Really, this is the same sort of thing that has gone on since the beginning: a breaking out of artificial barriers. How many times even in the last few months have we heard folks begging for a rule to be changed? Or stay the same? Or be made an "official core rule"? It's kind of ridiculous that designers have more pull at a gaming table than the participants themselves. Not that I begrudge the designers anything. Any help is great. It's that seeing outside the box, which was so essential to early play, is still going on in groups figuring out they can play however the wish. A bad rule or no rule doesn't stop that. I started a thread awhile back in the Rules Forum on how 3e would handle baseball, just as a test to get in the habit of extrapolating d20 you understand. Sadly I had no takers. Constructing the initial post though was eye opening on just how many basic physical actions simply aren't covered under d20 and are never thought twice about. I prefer the motto: "You can [I]try[/I] anything. But I can't guarantee it'll work how you think it will." [/QUOTE]

Verification