Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5937484" data-attributes="member: 54877">Monte is talking more about rules in play than character generation, but this was the first easy example that sprang to mind:&nbsp;1. If the game author provides an elf class that is always a fighter/magic user mix, because the game is rather simple, and that covers what the author wanted to do, then that's implicitly rules as logic. The rule works this way because the author envision the world this way. If you want to change the logic of that, and do an elf as fighter/cleric, you can decide how to go about that.&nbsp;2. If the game author divides races and classes, so that an elf can be any class, then that is more akin to a more formal set of rules for every situation. You can mix and match because the game tells you how.&nbsp;3. If then on top of that, the author restricts certain race and class combos for balance reasons, key game presentation flavor reasons, etc, then that's back to logic. If you want to change this, it's up to you to determine what the side effects will be, compared to the game as provided.&nbsp;That's all fine. You can draw the line in different places depending on how it interacts with the rest of the game, but it's a consideration either way.&nbsp; Most games are going to be somewhat of a mix, anyway, though some will have a definite lean overall and in key spots. &nbsp;4. Then we come to something like, the game author has it wide open with race and classes, so that any elf can be any class, and it will work, but some people don't like that. So they advocate for some of those restrictions. That's them hiding behind rules. &nbsp;Given a random game, it's sometimes difficult to tell those last two apart, from the outside looking in. Yet #3 can be good while #4 is ultimately lousy, as it is encroaching on the design, without providiing the benefits of either the logic approach or the systemized rules approach--except perhaps by accident. Catering to the &quot;hide me&quot; crowd will make the systemized rules messier and obscure the logic too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5937484, member: 54877"] Monte is talking more about rules in play than character generation, but this was the first easy example that sprang to mind: 1. If the game author provides an elf class that is always a fighter/magic user mix, because the game is rather simple, and that covers what the author wanted to do, then that's implicitly rules as logic. The rule works this way [B]because[/B] the author envision the world this way. If you want to change the logic of that, and do an elf as fighter/cleric, you can decide how to go about that. 2. If the game author divides races and classes, so that an elf can be any class, then that is more akin to a more formal set of rules for every situation. You can mix and match because the game tells you how. 3. If then on top of that, the author restricts certain race and class combos for balance reasons, key game presentation flavor reasons, etc, then that's back to logic. If you want to change this, it's up to you to determine what the side effects will be, compared to the game as provided. That's all fine. You can draw the line in different places depending on how it interacts with the rest of the game, but it's a consideration either way. Most games are going to be somewhat of a mix, anyway, though some will have a definite lean overall and in key spots. 4. Then we come to something like, the game author has it wide open with race and classes, so that any elf can be any class, and it will work, [B]but some people don't like that[/B]. So they advocate for some of those restrictions. That's them hiding behind rules. Given a random game, it's sometimes difficult to tell those last two apart, from the outside looking in. Yet #3 can be good while #4 is ultimately lousy, as it is encroaching on the design, [B]without[/B] providiing the benefits of either the logic approach or the systemized rules approach--except perhaps by accident. Catering to the "hide me" crowd will make the systemized rules messier and obscure the logic too. [/QUOTE]

Verification