Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5633960" data-attributes="member: 3400">Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem is still a far cry from having that be what the game is about. Advanced Squad Leader has a very robust and nuanced subsystem for off board artillery (including supplementary products just to make it easier to adjudicate). It's larger for its use than most other sections of the rules, though I'd be considered a loon if I were to say that's what the game is about.Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of any stripe is why that subsystem requires a substantial amount of rules and structure. Other games may dispense with it for combat, like the parliamentary debate competitions, because they explicitly don't care to have a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of that type. Traveller has a nuanced and flexible subsystem for interstellar trade but I wouldn't say that's what the game is about any more than I'd say combat is what D&amp;D is about. One table may make it their focus, but another will not and the game itself supports both groups.The main problem with saying D&amp;D is about some thing is you also define what it's not, and that starts to define deviation from what the game is about. And that's badwrongfun territory. If D&amp;D isn't about traipsing through faerie rings, what does that mean if you play D&amp;D that way? If it's about combat, what does it mean if you only have combat 1 in 4 or 5 sessions? Does it mean you're not playing it right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5633960, member: 3400"] Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem is still a far cry from having that be what the game is about. Advanced Squad Leader has a very robust and nuanced subsystem for off board artillery (including supplementary products just to make it easier to adjudicate). It's larger for its use than most other sections of the rules, though I'd be considered a loon if I were to say that's what the game is about. Wanting a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of any stripe is why that subsystem requires a substantial amount of rules and structure. Other games may dispense with it for combat, like the parliamentary debate competitions, because they explicitly don't care to have a robust, nuanced, and flexible subsystem of that type. Traveller has a nuanced and flexible subsystem for interstellar trade but I wouldn't say that's what the game is about any more than I'd say combat is what D&D is about. One table may make it their focus, but another will not and the game itself supports both groups. The main problem with saying D&D is about some [b]thing[/b] is you also define what it's not, and that starts to define deviation from what the game is about. And that's badwrongfun territory. If D&D isn't about traipsing through faerie rings, what does that mean if you play D&D that way? If it's about combat, what does it mean if you only have combat 1 in 4 or 5 sessions? Does it mean you're not playing it right? [/QUOTE]

Verification