Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Missing Rules
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7484026" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>That last bit is a point i wind up making on more than a few forums or groups where its extremely common for those wanting lotsa clicks to frame the intro post in very very polarizing extremes.</p><p></p><p>"I find that its great that the vast majority of games played are played and loads of fun in actual play in the vast middle ground between the polarizing extremes we see commonly propped up as if normal in forum posts."</p><p></p><p>As for the podcast... stealth... rules rulings.</p><p></p><p>i remember that same podcast. I remember him saying something to the effect that they looked at the big page(s) of stealth micro-details and realized it simply wouldn't cover all the cases, left many more still open and so... made the choice they did which i love BTW.</p><p></p><p>My experience has been that everytime a game system (RPG TT specifically but principle holds) is released that gets popularity on a sizeable scale that expands to more mainstream, its because of a higher degree of accessability in no small part. That almost always includes a non-daunting approach to the volume and intensity of rules which leads to more "conversational" approaches with fluff and setting intertwined with the "rule mechanics code" etc. </p><p></p><p>Almost immediately a smaller subset looks for more "rules as hard code" than that and degrees of furor, debate etc rage and inevitably someone releases another game amazingly similar with more "want intense rules" focus for those already into the game etc. Saw a recent PF2 playtest review which praised the "the style of the rules is like a computer language syntax..." etc etc and how there werent fluff and flavor and the focus for the rulebook was "where it should be - on laser tight rules code" (close to quote but really paraphrase."</p><p></p><p>And i looked at that and went "sure, if your market is folks already into the rpg and who lean towards hard rules hard core gaming."</p><p></p><p>Seen this parent and child RPG spawn happen dozens of times, its like a fairly typical life cycle that keeps repeating - its like re-runs of reboots of series that were derivatives of early series in the first place.</p><p></p><p>there's always gonna be a segment that believes "just a few more rules and a few more clarifications and we will get to the right ruleset". As often as not, that also applies to "balance" - one more layer of granularity in the costing balance formula and... yup breath Fresh water should cost 4 and breathe salt water should cost 5 if we keep 1d6 of genericum blast at 5."</p><p></p><p>personally, i find myself in the camp of "give a good enough baseline and tools/approach to make good calls" as a gold standard for RPG rulesets. its literally a sort of "teach a man to fish" mindset vs a "spoonfed charts a'plenty approach". (<em>"We thought maybe we had gone too far when we published the Midwifery Critical Chart. But, f'n no, turned out we hadn't. Not even close"</em>)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7484026, member: 6919838"] That last bit is a point i wind up making on more than a few forums or groups where its extremely common for those wanting lotsa clicks to frame the intro post in very very polarizing extremes. "I find that its great that the vast majority of games played are played and loads of fun in actual play in the vast middle ground between the polarizing extremes we see commonly propped up as if normal in forum posts." As for the podcast... stealth... rules rulings. i remember that same podcast. I remember him saying something to the effect that they looked at the big page(s) of stealth micro-details and realized it simply wouldn't cover all the cases, left many more still open and so... made the choice they did which i love BTW. My experience has been that everytime a game system (RPG TT specifically but principle holds) is released that gets popularity on a sizeable scale that expands to more mainstream, its because of a higher degree of accessability in no small part. That almost always includes a non-daunting approach to the volume and intensity of rules which leads to more "conversational" approaches with fluff and setting intertwined with the "rule mechanics code" etc. Almost immediately a smaller subset looks for more "rules as hard code" than that and degrees of furor, debate etc rage and inevitably someone releases another game amazingly similar with more "want intense rules" focus for those already into the game etc. Saw a recent PF2 playtest review which praised the "the style of the rules is like a computer language syntax..." etc etc and how there werent fluff and flavor and the focus for the rulebook was "where it should be - on laser tight rules code" (close to quote but really paraphrase." And i looked at that and went "sure, if your market is folks already into the rpg and who lean towards hard rules hard core gaming." Seen this parent and child RPG spawn happen dozens of times, its like a fairly typical life cycle that keeps repeating - its like re-runs of reboots of series that were derivatives of early series in the first place. there's always gonna be a segment that believes "just a few more rules and a few more clarifications and we will get to the right ruleset". As often as not, that also applies to "balance" - one more layer of granularity in the costing balance formula and... yup breath Fresh water should cost 4 and breathe salt water should cost 5 if we keep 1d6 of genericum blast at 5." personally, i find myself in the camp of "give a good enough baseline and tools/approach to make good calls" as a gold standard for RPG rulesets. its literally a sort of "teach a man to fish" mindset vs a "spoonfed charts a'plenty approach". ([I]"We thought maybe we had gone too far when we published the Midwifery Critical Chart. But, f'n no, turned out we hadn't. Not even close"[/I]) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Missing Rules
Top