Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 711209" data-attributes="member: 2205">Hold on there!&nbsp; No reason to get all size=5 on me.&nbsp; I realise you added the phrase &quot;for me&quot; although I don't know why you think simply adding that phrase doesn't make your post dismissive.&nbsp; Seems to me that if you don't find the activity worthwhile, you probably don't have much to add to the discussion.&nbsp; Coming on board just to say you think the whole thing is a waste of time is hardly constructive.Personally, I feel that it's better (and easier) to tweak the rules (i.e., custom spell system) than it is to create a world that works with the assumptions of the rules as written.&nbsp; I think the point is though, that the published worlds and the published systems seem to be somewhat incompatible: the worlds don't actually follow to their logical conclusion the assumptions that the rules would seem to imply.&nbsp; We had a discussion along these lines recently in a SHARK thread -- I'll see if I can find the URL and resurrect it.&nbsp; SHARK's world is one that is built on the assumptions inherent in the rules and follows through with them to create a world that is different from your standard D&amp;D campaign setting.&nbsp; The kind I prefer to run are also different, but I steal spell-systems from other games and work them into a d20 framework so I can get a setting that is more along the lines of what I want.&nbsp; It's a bit of a chicken/egg question: which one do you want to influence, the setting or the rules?&nbsp; In other words, which variable drives the other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 711209, member: 2205"] Hold on there! No reason to get all size=5 on me. I realise you added the phrase "for me" although I don't know why you think simply adding that phrase doesn't make your post dismissive. Seems to me that if you don't find the activity worthwhile, you probably don't have much to add to the discussion. Coming on board just to say you think the whole thing is a waste of time is hardly constructive. Personally, I feel that it's better (and easier) to tweak the rules (i.e., custom spell system) than it is to create a world that works with the assumptions of the rules as written. I think the point is though, that the published worlds and the published systems seem to be somewhat incompatible: the worlds don't actually follow to their logical conclusion the assumptions that the rules would seem to imply. We had a discussion along these lines recently in a SHARK thread -- I'll see if I can find the URL and resurrect it. SHARK's world is one that is built on the assumptions inherent in the rules and follows through with them to create a world that is different from your standard D&D campaign setting. The kind I prefer to run are also different, but I steal spell-systems from other games and work them into a d20 framework so I can get a setting that is more along the lines of what I want. It's a bit of a chicken/egg question: which one do you want to influence, the setting or the rules? In other words, which variable drives the other? [/QUOTE]

Verification