Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1979746" data-attributes="member: 17296">I do mean the rules themselves about some things, and about others I'm referring to people's views of the rules, the way the rules are implimented. Communication is a two way street, these rules (and this discussion, for that matter) are attempts at communication, and as such *in general* both parties are responsible for miscommunication to some degree... Here I'm stating that the way these rules are written tends to have, on average... from what I've seen, the effect of a more static system than I personally like. It's not very customizable. With the exception of the easy ability to ADD rules. A nice ability, it allows for growth, but not really fundamental change.And so, actually, people's perceptions of the game, the culture around the rules is actually the only support (in my opinion, and by the discussion that I'm projecting) for the rules being "to quantitative" or not. (By which I mean that's the measure that I'm using to make the determination) I have seen several examples of different rules sets. And I conciede the point that certain types of people will gravitate towards certain systems. On the other hand it's quite possible (and I argue probably) that some if not most of those people have "learned" this type of thought from the system/rules set WotC has published. And I've seen SOME people playing in multiple rulessets, they have an easier time being flexible in the ones that are made flexibly, logically. They tend to not want to mess with the 3.X system because attempting to do so tends to cause them so many problems.I've read it. We may be talking about different types of customization, I suppose. They can't possibly intend for you to never change the rules. They just made it more difficult than I'd like. I've read UA too. It's a collection of houserules. Some of them are interesting, and I found it enjoyable that they made money off people's houserules by publishing them in a non-"core" book about them. It appears to me, from your reaction to my post, that you've misunderstood my point.Quite the opposite, in fact. If you only use homebrew games and you're defining homebrew in the same way I am... and you significantly change the rules while still using the rules set in 3.X and you do it all the time without significant effort? I believe I referred to you as an epic level gamesmith instead. A high epic level one, at that. All I said was that your general one will have difficulties making changes to the system without it drastically effecting the entire thing. Perhaps you manage to automatically know and compensate for every detail of every change you make. In which case even in a well modulated game I'm pretty impressed with your abilities. I think you didn't do that part of your arguement very well. In one sentence you seem to be stating that the rules aren't written rigidly, while you seem to be supporting it by stating that gamers have been overcoming rigid rules such as these. I admit that I'm reading into what you've typed, but that's the point of my restating here, so you can see what I've "heard" or understood...And I completely admit that nothing short of the entire world is the entire world. My inclusion of the internet forums was,  on the other hand, my statement that I was not only using my experiences in real life, but also those I've read about. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that you personally are basing your opinion on the ENTIRE world, I would like a more personalized example of why you feel my circles  are atypical of the community as a whole.Shoot, I wasn't "asking" for anything really, so much as making the statement that 3.X is more of the rigid side lawful and less of the creative side of chaotic than I like. For some references I'll say I particularly liked the original TORG, and I like the mutability of the current RPG rulesset HeroQuest.  But really, I'll agree... an infinitely mutable system is a lot to ask for. If I thought they would be granting requests I'd just ask for a good set of rules for making custom spells, so that they could have a more official standing. And, my POINT there, of course, is the very idea that I'd want an official leg to stand on. In a game like the HQ that I meantioned, almost everything is custom, and if you want something 'new' there's definitely already a rule for the mechanic of it. Not everything's perfect, of course, and that one has it's own set of drawbacks. Hell, I play with core rules as written all the time. And I have a great time doing it. Once again I'm going to state that I think you may have gotten the wrong impression of my writings here. I was answering the question "Is third edition too 'quantitative'." Which I interpreted to mean "Is it more quantitative than you would optimally prefer". I answered "yes", and I gave some of my reasons why.I don't say that it's a failing of the system so much as I say it's a quality of the system. The system is heavy on the Lawful side, and light on the customizible side.One indeed COULD. In fact, I could even use that as an example of why 3.X is giving in to that excess of lawful desire. Fortunately for me, I don't have such a driving need, I just noted that this system is, in my opinion, "too quantitative". I put that in quotes because that's the definition of quantitative isn't really the one I'm working with in giving my statements, I'm instead interpreting it to mean "too rules heavy" or perhaps "not very malleable". In fact, earlier I meantioned that I really liked TORG, and I'll further state that it does not have this qualitiy of "too quantitative" that I'm against in the 3.X system. But, if you actually look at the book, you'll find a LOT of numbers. It's very quantivative in the actual definition of the term. But then again, I felt and responded as if the author of the question was using a different contexutal meaning. Certainly. ALL law is a subset of chaos. I fully recognize that, and would never argue to the contrary. (Well, I might, but I'd know it was counter to reality!)YES!!! And there we have my point in a nutshell. Compromise with THIS system takes a lot of imagination and resources. It's very difficult! It's resistant to change! I feel that the system is "too quantitative" in the way that it is, in my opinion, too difficult to adapt. Of course, I take your actual meaning, and if someone were to do the incredible and manage to write a system that actually did what in my wildest dreams would be the perfect system, it would be in no way exactly what anyone was asking for. It would instead be a set of ways to make what you want... but it could not, by definition, BE what you want.</blockquote>

Verification