Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5026909" data-attributes="member: 80487">One could attain a similar complexity by adding a lot of stuff to the core 1E or 2E books -- which are thus clearly too simple for you. The big question is why it's necessary to have the large-scale integration of 3E, a "monolithic kernel" rather than a modular one. Why must everyone be saddled with at least the complications that happen to suit some?The problem goes back at least to 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery, which separated rules into broad sections but nonetheless brought a great many interacting factors to bear on any character.The answer of course has to do with the ends to which the structure and its necessity for "system mastery" is a means. It facilitates the game of "builds". It facilitates the game of manipulating known and quantified factors, rigid rules.(However little I might like rules-lawyering in actually playing D&D, it is a great asset in play-testers for all sorts of games -- especially historical war-games! People who stick with historical tactics, or even common sense, don't give the rules such a workout. On the other hand, applying knowledge and common sense is one of the reasons for having a Game Master.)What if there were to be a formally defined set of "tournament rules", perhaps even more than one such competitive game so as to cater to different styles of play?</blockquote>