Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4041503" data-attributes="member: 4937">Actually, I did have detailed models in 1st edition, but I haven't had an in game reason to need argicultural rules in 3rd edition, so I've never ported them over.Me too.&nbsp; Although, generally speaking, most players don't express an interest in agricultural details unless they have a really good reason (like, &quot;I need to feed my army, and there doesn't seem to be alot of friendly clerics around here.&quot;).Not quite, but close enough for the purposes of the discussion.&nbsp; I'm actually saying what I said, which had some nuances being 'surprisingly' left out of your restatement.Yes.&nbsp; Or rather, there way is right, but my way is more right.&nbsp; Cthulhu won't rise if you don't follow my advice.No.&nbsp; I'm not advocating rule bloat.&nbsp; Earlier, when the subject of special critical hit tables came up, I advocated against it on the grounds of rules bloat.&nbsp; There are lots of ways a system can be comprehensive and still avoid rules bloat.&nbsp; The trick is to be abstract and have an adaptable core resolution mechanic.&nbsp; But yeah, the less abstract your system, the more certainly you'll experience what you call 'rules bloat' the longer your game goes.&nbsp; And the more you depart from the core assumptions of basic play in the system (D&amp;D's 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff') the more gaps you'll need to fill the in rules.&nbsp; Since I've taken D&amp;D waaaaaay away from 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff' on occassion, I've ended up needing some really esoteric rules to measure and resolve quantities that D&amp;D doesn't normally deal with.&nbsp;&nbsp; I take it you aren't familiar with Dragon magazine, if you think that we've never had rules in a previous edition for &quot;all this minutiea&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4041503, member: 4937"] Actually, I did have detailed models in 1st edition, but I haven't had an in game reason to need argicultural rules in 3rd edition, so I've never ported them over. Me too. Although, generally speaking, most players don't express an interest in agricultural details unless they have a really good reason (like, "I need to feed my army, and there doesn't seem to be alot of friendly clerics around here."). Not quite, but close enough for the purposes of the discussion. I'm actually saying what I said, which had some nuances being 'surprisingly' left out of your restatement. Yes. Or rather, there way is right, but my way is more right. Cthulhu won't rise if you don't follow my advice. No. I'm not advocating rule bloat. Earlier, when the subject of special critical hit tables came up, I advocated against it on the grounds of rules bloat. There are lots of ways a system can be comprehensive and still avoid rules bloat. The trick is to be abstract and have an adaptable core resolution mechanic. But yeah, the less abstract your system, the more certainly you'll experience what you call 'rules bloat' the longer your game goes. And the more you depart from the core assumptions of basic play in the system (D&D's 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff') the more gaps you'll need to fill the in rules. Since I've taken D&D waaaaaay away from 'kill the monsters and take thier stuff' on occassion, I've ended up needing some really esoteric rules to measure and resolve quantities that D&D doesn't normally deal with. I take it you aren't familiar with Dragon magazine, if you think that we've never had rules in a previous edition for "all this minutiea". [/QUOTE]

Verification