Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9546022" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I generally agree, but do have to note that its an easier run with some games than others, and a big part of that is how consistent the base design of the system is in the first place.&nbsp; An effect based system gives you a lot of tools for comparison quite early; an exception based system far less so.&nbsp; This is probably a bigger factor than the complexity of the system when you get right down to it.Though it depends on some level on how similar the rules you're using are to extent rules how much the latter helps.&nbsp; I can see elements of 13A that made it both easier and harder than many other games, and some parts of it were easier to work with than others (they were generally conservative on how many opponent units they suggested--enough so that a player group that at all had their act together could steamroller over their suggested value--but while they realized that double strength/Large and triple strength/Huge monsters were a little fraught, I think it sunk in much more over time).Well, it didn't hurt that the D&amp;D3e CR system progressively broke down over levels, either.&nbsp; By the time you got to 10th level it was 95% of the time overstating how dangerous monsters were and 5% understating it, perhaps severely.I do imagine that does make it simpler.&nbsp; It also seems markedly uninteresting to me, but that's just me and I realize BitD is doing different things than most games.It'd be nice, but design notes are thin on the ground at the best of times.Yeah, there are 13th Age monsters that clearly don't fit even the limited number categories suggested, and you're left kind of to yourself to figure out why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9546022, member: 7026617"] I generally agree, but do have to note that its an easier run with some games than others, and a big part of that is how consistent the base design of the system is in the first place. An effect based system gives you a lot of tools for comparison quite early; an exception based system far less so. This is probably a bigger factor than the complexity of the system when you get right down to it. Though it depends on some level on how similar the rules you're using are to extent rules how much the latter helps. I can see elements of 13A that made it both easier and harder than many other games, and some parts of it were easier to work with than others (they were generally conservative on how many opponent units they suggested--enough so that a player group that at all had their act together could steamroller over their suggested value--but while they realized that double strength/Large and triple strength/Huge monsters were a little fraught, I think it sunk in much more over time). Well, it didn't hurt that the D&D3e CR system progressively broke down over levels, either. By the time you got to 10th level it was 95% of the time overstating how dangerous monsters were and 5% understating it, perhaps severely. I do imagine that does make it simpler. It also seems markedly uninteresting to me, but that's just me and I realize BitD is doing different things than most games. It'd be nice, but design notes are thin on the ground at the best of times. Yeah, there are 13th Age monsters that clearly don't fit even the limited number categories suggested, and you're left kind of to yourself to figure out why. [/QUOTE]

Verification