Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ST" data-source="post: 3735708" data-attributes="member: 14053">It doesn't. I really think that there's a disconnect in what we're all talking about, between&quot;It has rules that let you do X,Y, and Z, all using basically the same mechanic&quot; versus &quot;It has extra rules that cover X, Y, and Z as separate rules cases&quot;Both approaches work great! The only reason whether you'd want to specify between the two is because someone might choose one approach over the other. Some people like the first one because it's easier to add in new cases (using the same mechanic), some like the second one because it they enjoy more complex rules.I know I've played in and enjoyed games using each approach. But if you or your group is in the mood for one, you wouldn't want to end up with the other for that game. But I think we're just discussing how they work, and not judging either as right or wrong.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ST, post: 3735708, member: 14053"] It doesn't. I really think that there's a disconnect in what we're all talking about, between "It has rules that let you do X,Y, and Z, all using basically the same mechanic" versus "It has extra rules that cover X, Y, and Z [i]as separate rules cases[/i]" Both approaches work great! The only reason whether you'd want to specify between the two is because someone might choose one approach over the other. Some people like the first one because it's easier to add in new cases (using the same mechanic), some like the second one because it they enjoy more complex rules. I know I've played in and enjoyed games using each approach. But if you or your group is in the mood for one, you wouldn't want to end up with the other for that game. But I think we're just discussing how they work, and not judging either as right or wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification