Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 4773642" data-attributes="member: 23977">And this is the crux of my disagreement. I don't agree that the rules should have any applied meaning to the world. They're just there to resolve the question of what happens when I try to do X task.Games that DO try to present the rules as some sort of representation of the world around them in my opinion get WAY to pointlessly cumbersome. They devolve into too many various charts, sub-systems, and diverse ways of doing essentially the same thing.This doesn't mean I think rules should exist just for the sake of being a rule either though. I think rules should exist only to answer the question asked at the table. &quot;What happens when I hit with my ax?&quot; &quot;You do X amount of damage.&quot;For my tastes a magic arrow and a real arrow don't need to have two seperate sets of mechanics to make one &quot;feel&quot; like a real arrow and the other &quot;feal&quot; like a magic arrow.In both cases I believe there should be a hit chance, plus damage if the hit is successful. The difference for ME comes in the description of the event in game.&quot;Johan mutters a few ancient arcane words and a glowing green orb of eldrich energy appears before his outstretched hand. With another command the orb speeds off towards his oncoming opponent.&quot;Feels much different to me then:&quot;Johan peers down the shaft of his currently knocked arrow. With a twang the powerful string of his great ashen bow sends the missle speeding off towards his oncoming enemy...&quot;The two effects are essentialy the same thing (a ranged attack) so we don't need two seperate rules to achieve the effect. I feel we can use the same rule structure, but describe the action differently.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 4773642, member: 23977"] And this is the crux of my disagreement. I don't agree that the rules should have any applied meaning to the world. They're just there to resolve the question of what happens when I try to do X task. Games that DO try to present the rules as some sort of representation of the world around them in my opinion get WAY to pointlessly cumbersome. They devolve into too many various charts, sub-systems, and diverse ways of doing essentially the same thing. This doesn't mean I think rules should exist just for the sake of being a rule either though. I think rules should exist only to answer the question asked at the table. "What happens when I hit with my ax?" "You do X amount of damage." For my tastes a magic arrow and a real arrow don't need to have two seperate sets of mechanics to make one "feel" like a real arrow and the other "feal" like a magic arrow. In both cases I believe there should be a hit chance, plus damage if the hit is successful. The difference for ME comes in the description of the event in game. "Johan mutters a few ancient arcane words and a glowing green orb of eldrich energy appears before his outstretched hand. With another command the orb speeds off towards his oncoming opponent." Feels much different to me then: "Johan peers down the shaft of his currently knocked arrow. With a twang the powerful string of his great ashen bow sends the missle speeding off towards his oncoming enemy..." The two effects are essentialy the same thing (a ranged attack) so we don't need two seperate rules to achieve the effect. I feel we can use the same rule structure, but describe the action differently. [/QUOTE]

Verification