Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1977114" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, I'm referring to the core rules here, so "They" would be the people who wrote the rules.  There's a small problem with using the opinion of the masses to tell you about what the game rules really hold - because a great many of the masses use the rulebooks without having ever really read them, cover to cover.  Frequently, a player or GM will only skim the book, looking for the bits they need at the moment, and never really read the whole thing.  And if you aren't going to specifically look for the information on customizing, you won't find it, and may end up with the inaccurate impression that the information isn't there.I have yet to see it done well anywhere (including GURPS).  I would prefer a rule-set that is well done, but not modular, than a rules set ithat is modular, but stinks.In addition, the game rules are written with at least some attention paid to the fact that you need to walk before you can run. RPGs are akin to poetry and literature - you need to know the rules and how they work before you can learn when and where to break and change the rules.  The basics are covered in the core rules.  How to play with things are covered in things like Unearthed Arcana and Savage Species and other non-core books.Why the separation?  Well, economics is one - aside from the fact that WotC exists to make money, putting all the interesting variations into the core rules would end up with them being hideously expensive.  Another is conceptual - in a basic book on grammar, you won't find a whole lot of information on how to play wiht the laws of grammar to write good poetry, and for good reason.  Two words for you - Unearthed Arcana.  An entire book about ways to change the rules.  How can you say that they intend that you never change the rules?  The company that publishes the rules has given you options, and made it terribly easy for 3rd parties to give you options.  How can you read this as an intention fo ryou to keep them static as written?Ah, I see.  So I, who only use hombrew for my games, and have no problem at all customizing the rules, must be terribly, horribly bad at hombrewing.  Thank you very much.True, I only customize to a point.  I don't try to make D&D into a hard science fiction game.  But I believe in using the right tool for the right job.  As an analogy - I may try to tweak things so that my phillips head screwdriver works like a straight headed one.  But rather than trying to find a way to turn my screwdriver into a hammer, I'll actually go look for a hammer.  I don't believe you can make a game infinitely customizable without ruining it.  So, I admit that there are limits to customizability.  I think that is a good thing, as it encourages diversity in the gaming world.I am unconvinced that this is because of the way the rules are formed or written.  Gamers have been overcoming rigid rules for decades.  I think think you should look elsewhere to find the causes for this effect, if it exists.Why do I say "if"?  Because internet forums are not a particularly valid statistical sample of the gaming community, as they select for gamers that are similar in too many ways.  What you see here, on WotC boards, or RPG.net may not really reflect the gaming world as a whole.Really, no, that's not true at all.  The OGL and d20 licenses are there specifically so that there are some books that WotC doesn't have to write if they don't think they can make enough profit.  WotC wants you to buy their books, but they also intend that you buy and use other books on topics they don't produce themselves.  That's part of the overall business plan, and so far it is working pretty well.As I've noted elsewhere, I've not seen what you're asking for done well anywhere.  You've yet to show that it can be done well at all.  What you may be seeing is no the Evil WotC trying to lock you into something. It may simply be designers knowing their own limits, and producing something that is D&D, and is good, but that fails to be all things to all people.Really, trying to be all things to all people is asking for trouble.  Look around these boards for a while.  There are people who talk all the time about games in which they're nto playing with the core rules as written, and having a great time doing it.  I think your perception may not match reality as well as you think.In addition, something you might consider - perhaps extreme customizability may not be a Holy Grail worth seeking.  Consider - you say that the inability to giveyou exactly what you want means the game is too lawful, and that this is a failing of the system.  Have you considered turingin it around for amoment?  Could we not say that the driving need of gamers to have mechanics exactly as they want indicates an inflexibility, a excess of lawfulness, in the gamers?  Shouldn't gamers be open to the chaos of a world that doesn't pander to their every whim?  Does not compromise with the system take more imagination than being handed exactly what you ask for?</blockquote>

Verification