Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How does IH actually play?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3454181" data-attributes="member: 1757"><p>It's a nice idea!</p><p></p><p>FWIW, I think that a generic token pool is fine, but I'd rather force players to choose a pool type. Your suggestion of allowing one pool to do anything actually makes the game <em>more</em> complicated, not less.</p><p></p><p>The essential difference IMO between a rules-heavy system and a rules-light system is that a rules-heavy system provides a larger range of choices with a larger range of mechanical consequences. A rules-heavy system therefore allows for a wider range of descriptive mechanics: The barbarian has a mechanical consequence for raging that closely matches the description of raging (he hits harder, can take more hits, and is more resistant to mental influence, but can't concentrate and is worse at dodging blows), while the fighter excels at a range of combat techniques (bonus feats) such that he can parry, use particular weapons to great effect, and do cool stuff in combat. </p><p></p><p>The rules-heavy system fails where there are too many different ways to achieve the identical mechanical consequence; this is something that gets me with the D&D modular spell, magic item, and PrC mechanics, because one ends up with ten different ways to achieve the same mechanical result (and worse, sometimes you get crazy stacking). OTOH, the rules-light system fails <em>either</em> when a) it fails to deliver a satisfactory range of mechanical or descriptive options; or b) it isn't actually rules-light because of inelegance (the latter is why I don't like C&C). </p><p></p><p>Sorry to essay. In short, if your players will be happy having a single set of mechanical benefits and instead getting variety out of describing their actions in-game, I'd just go with a single set of mechanics (action, roll vs DC, result [success or failure]) and call it a day.</p><p></p><p>Incidentally, I find allowing action points to be spent for extra actions to slow down play even more than spending them for benefits. If you don't, though, go for it!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ruleslawyer, post: 3454181, member: 1757"] It's a nice idea! FWIW, I think that a generic token pool is fine, but I'd rather force players to choose a pool type. Your suggestion of allowing one pool to do anything actually makes the game [i]more[/i] complicated, not less. The essential difference IMO between a rules-heavy system and a rules-light system is that a rules-heavy system provides a larger range of choices with a larger range of mechanical consequences. A rules-heavy system therefore allows for a wider range of descriptive mechanics: The barbarian has a mechanical consequence for raging that closely matches the description of raging (he hits harder, can take more hits, and is more resistant to mental influence, but can't concentrate and is worse at dodging blows), while the fighter excels at a range of combat techniques (bonus feats) such that he can parry, use particular weapons to great effect, and do cool stuff in combat. The rules-heavy system fails where there are too many different ways to achieve the identical mechanical consequence; this is something that gets me with the D&D modular spell, magic item, and PrC mechanics, because one ends up with ten different ways to achieve the same mechanical result (and worse, sometimes you get crazy stacking). OTOH, the rules-light system fails [i]either[/i] when a) it fails to deliver a satisfactory range of mechanical or descriptive options; or b) it isn't actually rules-light because of inelegance (the latter is why I don't like C&C). Sorry to essay. In short, if your players will be happy having a single set of mechanical benefits and instead getting variety out of describing their actions in-game, I'd just go with a single set of mechanics (action, roll vs DC, result [success or failure]) and call it a day. Incidentally, I find allowing action points to be spent for extra actions to slow down play even more than spending them for benefits. If you don't, though, go for it! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How does IH actually play?
Top