Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andre" data-source="post: 2389297" data-attributes="member: 25930">Ok, this makes sense. I saw the same thing when board games were first transferred to the computer. The computer screen generally could not show much of the board, which dramatically affected a player's ability to see the situation at a glance. Add in a bad interface for actual gameplay and many a good boardgame became unplayable on the computer - even when the rules were identical.If I understand you, you're also saying that the rules themselves can enhance/detract from rules mastery and, therefore, the interface between the game and the players. A core mechanic can, if properly designed, make it easier to apply the rules when playing the game and, hence, to assess the odds of success of a given action. Interestingly, I think this is one of the most commonly praised elements of C&C - it's relatively simple task resolution system.[Rant on  <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=":)" />] And this is the crux of my personal dislike for 3.x. There are very few rules I specifically dislike, but many that - in play - are not worth the effort. Too situational modifiers ("Don't forget my character's bonus to saves when confronted by chickens at night when there's a full moon and..."). Too many types of bonuses. A few rules sub-systems which use significantly different mechanics than the core. Too many spells that "break" the normal rules in some way which must be adjudicated. Figuring AoO's for movement. Each of these add something to the game, but at too high a cost in fun for my particular group. I don't necessarily want fewer rules, but I do want simpler ones. [Rant off]I'd like to posit a different question: if different groups have different thresholds for rules/interface complexity, why not design the rules to be somewhat modular? For instance, D&D could have basic rules, with AoO's being optional. A simple core mechanic could be used for special attacks, such as grapple, trip, etc., with a more complex mechanic available as an option. It seems to me that such a system, properly designed, would appeal to a broader market than the current system, which constantly warns against making changes because of "balance" (which IMO is another red herring).</blockquote>

Verification