Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6097081">The problem I have with such systems is that it allows for lazy design.&nbsp; Designers don't have to be specific, detailed, or accurate in their work because this sort of mentality allows them to say &quot;Oh we'll just let them DM decide.&quot;&nbsp; Which fractures more than it facilitates, no two tables ever play the same even with the same rules, people are constantly looking for a game that's run &quot;to their liking&quot; because there's no standardization.&nbsp; If we want a new game that brings people together, we CANNOT have a system that relies on &quot;table rulings&quot; as the primary way to move the game forward.We all need to be on the same page, reading the same words, playing the same system.&nbsp; That's not to say that modularity can't bring variance, but assuming a DDN &quot;Basic&quot; game with Basic-only material, every table doing this should have roughly the same readings of the rules.&nbsp; Experiences may differ due to different adventures, party composition, focuses and playstyles, but players could, in general, all tell that everyone else is playing the same game they are.If we don't do this, when experiences are shared, people will naturally gravitate towards more &quot;generous&quot; rulings and create friction at the table by seeming to posess an &quot;entitlement&quot; mentality, which is really just the player presenting their own opinion of how something could work.&nbsp; We then end up with a system that doesn't just assume a competent DM, it assumes a controlling DM.&nbsp; Which in turn creates a situation where the players have no right to present their opinion and the DM's word is law.Which I think makes for a pretty poor system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6097081"] The problem I have with such systems is that it allows for lazy design. Designers don't have to be specific, detailed, or accurate in their work because this sort of mentality allows them to say "Oh we'll just let them DM decide." Which fractures more than it facilitates, no two tables ever play the same even with the same rules, people are constantly looking for a game that's run "to their liking" because there's no standardization. If we want a new game that brings people together, we CANNOT have a system that relies on "table rulings" as the primary way to move the game forward. We all need to be on the same page, reading the same words, playing the same system. That's not to say that modularity can't bring variance, but assuming a DDN "Basic" game with Basic-only material, every table doing this should have roughly the same readings of the rules. Experiences may differ due to different adventures, party composition, focuses and playstyles, but players could, in general, all tell that everyone else is playing the same game they are. If we don't do this, when experiences are shared, people will naturally gravitate towards more "generous" rulings and create friction at the table by seeming to posess an "entitlement" mentality, which is really just the player presenting their own opinion of how something could work. We then end up with a system that doesn't just assume a competent DM, it assumes a [I]controlling[/I] DM. Which in turn creates a situation where the players have [I]no[/I] right to present their opinion and the DM's word is law. Which I think makes for a pretty poor system. [/QUOTE]

Verification