Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8112024" data-attributes="member: 29398">And right there you hit the first problem: that having designed that universal language you then have to shoehorn everything into using it even when it's not the best tool for the job.  IMO that's bad design.The drawbacks you list don't outweigh the benefit of this sort of design always either having or being able to have the best system in place for whatever is needed at the time.  Further, with less integration it's way easier to change or tweak or add or drop something such that the game works better for you.How boring. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The DM should always be able to rule that situation-x requires an 8 on d8 to succeed (if only because you just can't get an accurate 1/8 chance on a d20) - but she then has to be consistent and do the same again if situation-x ever re-occurs.The risk there is medium- to long-term boredom once players (and DMs) figure they've learned all the tricks.Presenting lots of different elements isn't a problem in itself provided one can write both clearly and 'interestingly'.  The key there is to have a useful index and coherent structure in both the player-side and DM-side rulebooks, which is where 1e-as-written falls down hard.</blockquote>