Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gentlegamer" data-source="post: 3173740" data-attributes="member: 2425">For a roleplaying game I utterly reject the notion that there is such a thing as an &quot;incomplete ruleset,&quot; unless you mean something like the SRD which doesn't have the rules for advancing characters (and no guidelines are given). Adding to a system is much, much easier (preference-wise) than subtracting from a system that is as tightly systematized as d20. For example, considerations of tactical/miniatures combat is now so firmly intertwined throughout the system that those who don't want to use tactical combat cannot remove it without essentially rewritting the system. What matters in a rpg is the game result as a matter of adjudication (in this context of skills, stunts, etc). That's the base upon which other layers of consideration can be build (simulationists, etc.).&nbsp;I find it curious that while you care about &quot;good&quot; you're also seem to disregard that the &quot;fewer/broader skills&quot; issue we are discussing is just as &quot;good&quot; at doing what is intended: providing a system for skills. The disagreement is on what is &quot;good&quot; in the skill system: simulationists want more minute differentiations build into the rules, while others just want a system for adjudication the basic results (i.e. the hawk and bat example).I also reject the term &quot;robust&quot; used in this context: it is meaningless at best and loaded at worst, similar to &quot;progressive&quot; in the political context.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gentlegamer, post: 3173740, member: 2425"] For a roleplaying game I utterly reject the notion that there is such a thing as an "incomplete ruleset," unless you mean something like the SRD which doesn't have the rules for advancing characters (and no guidelines are given). Adding to a system is much, much easier (preference-wise) than subtracting from a system that is as tightly systematized as d20. For example, considerations of tactical/miniatures combat is now so firmly intertwined throughout the system that those who don't want to use tactical combat cannot remove it without essentially rewritting the system. What matters in a rpg is the [i]game result[/i] as a matter of adjudication (in this context of skills, stunts, etc). That's the base upon which other layers of consideration can be build (simulationists, etc.). I find it curious that while you care about "good" you're also seem to disregard that the "fewer/broader skills" issue we are discussing is just as "good" at doing what is intended: providing a system for skills. The disagreement is on what is "good" in the skill system: simulationists want more minute differentiations build into the rules, while others just want a system for adjudication the basic results (i.e. the hawk and bat example). I also reject the term "robust" used in this context: it is meaningless at best and loaded at worst, similar to "progressive" in the political context. [/QUOTE]

Verification