Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5624601" data-attributes="member: 54877">It's a good framework for looking at the issue from the big picture angle, instead of zeroing in on details. Since I think that angle is sorely neglected, I'm all for the attempt. <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=":)" /> Given that framework, I think the next piece of information that is most relevant is that every group is going to collectively (and sometimes individually, as well) make decisions that will constrain that universe, and thus try to make it manageable. There is not only nothing wrong with this effort, it is practically required--and natural to do, anyway. You couldn't stop it, anymore than you could stop the sun rising in the east. Every time someone makes one of these decisions, the world become more coherent, according to what that group wants. However, other options are closed off--and this includes options that would make perfect sense in some other group, that has made different decisions. What you often end up with, and have ever since the first version of D&D came down the pike, is that some people will decide A, B, C, D, and E. Then suddenly, they realize that Rule X is now goofy, unrealistic, too slow, or any number of such things. And then they want that rule changed. If they are particularly insightful on this whole decision process, they realize that the whole thing stops working for them because of those A-E decisions. (Most people aren't that insightful most of the time. This isn't a failing, as being that insightful on a regular basis would be impressive.) So then they'll decide whether A-E is worth dealing with the rule as is or a house rule to replace it.  The rest of us just kind of guess what we want and try to work around it. If you want to evaluate Rule X holistically, though, you have to go back before all those decisions are set in stone. Then look at the rule as it was intended to work. And then, from a practical standpoint, look at some of the common decisions that people want to make, and have made, and decide which ones will be supported--keeping in mind, that if you don't have good market research, you are just guessing. (And maybe just guessing even if you do have such research. Educated guessing, but still guessing.)  Someone saying that they want A-E decisions to mesh with most every rule in the book is stating a preference. If the designers don't satisfy that, then they probably won't like the game. Failure to satisfy them, however, is not much of a basis for a holistic criticism of Rule X. It's just a data point. If enough people feel this way, it's a data point for a business plan criticism and/or a criticism of the aforementioned market research, or the educated guesses done from it. It is still not a useful criticism of Rule X alone, though, because if fails to take into account all the other people that made a different set of decisions, about the coherence of their game world.</blockquote>

Verification