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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1870556" data-attributes="member: 23012">Merric, are you deliberately misreading my posts?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> GURPS was not the only example I mentioned (and in fact it is not even the system with which I am most familiar -- I would be on firmer ground talking about, say, Unisystem).  But even with respect to GURPS I think that you are being too quick: the "GURPS lite" rules (as well as the full rules, for that matter) include a 'basic combat system' that is pretty fast and easy.  If you don't want to bother with lots of complex tactical rules, you can play just using the basic combat rules.  On the other hand, if tactical combat is your thing, you can add combat rules without unbalancing the game.3E lacks this feature (it might be possible to 'simplify' the 3E combat system, but every change you make, e.g. getting rid of AoOs, is likely to 'unbalance' things, e.g. by giving spellcasters and rogues an advantage in combat).It will be interesting to see if C&C can accomplish 'balanced modularity' with respect to optional rules.  If most optional rules can be appended to C&C the way that the RC skills system could be added or dropped from the RC core rules without greating imbalances (well, aside from the very minor ones you mentioned), then C&C will prove to be another successful example of a kind of game design that you strangely claim is impossible.  (Many playtesters have claimed that C&C is modular in this way -- I hope they are right.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification