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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9552051" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I haven't quoted your whole post, but you repeatedly conflate simple, minimalist, or "least design" with "lazy." That's not accurate. At all. Achieving the desired outcome in the simplest, most direct, and most easily understood way possible takes a ton of design effort, is a massive feature rather than a flaw, and should be the aspiration of all rules systems. Shorthanding it to "lazy" is absurd.To the contrary, keeping a complex system rather than trying to figure out how to make it more elegant is, in fact, lazy. Failing to apply Occam's Razor is lazy thinking. Properly applying it takes a lot of rigour; it's what we aspire to in critical thinking lessons. I'm just starting my unit on pseudo-science, and the first thing we look at is the way that pseudo-sciences typically use a lot of complicated systems and verbiage that amount to basically nothing.One of the great features of the 5e system, in many opinions, is that it preserved the essence of D&D while significantly simplifying the design. My favourite RPG, Dread, could not have simpler design, and that is what makes it great: it does exactly what it is designed to do, and I can explain it to newbies in literally less than a minute. That is not lazy, it's ingenious.If the outcome isn't what you preferred, that's a valid criticism. Explain why the outcome doesn't satisfy your vision of D&D - if your argument is that a more complex system is, in fact, necessary, then make that case. But simply writing off their efforts as "lazy" is, well, a lazy argument.</blockquote>

Verification