Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Swanosaurus" data-source="post: 9348370" data-attributes="member: 7044220">Okay, first of all sorry for the snark regarding knowing other systems than D&D. It's just that I feel that D&D is particularly bad at the whole "core resolution mechanism" thing; there wasn't one until 3rd edition, and I feel that until this day, it never really got the hang of it as well as a lot of other systems ... in AD&D 2nd, I actually didn't know what to do in a lot of cases. That's why we didn't play it very long.(EDIT: I realize that this one ticked me off a bit:... took this as meaning something along the lines of: "I don't have to be familiar with any of your irrelevant other RPGs to know that they're inferior." I now realize that you mention other RPGs you are familiar with immediately after that; my bad.)Apart from that: A lot of the hypothetical situations you mention above ... well, it honestly wouldn't cross my mind to spend a lot of thought on them. Warehouse door vs. vault door? If you have super-strength, the first one is probably no roll, the second one a normal one. Or pick a modifier. I usually don't bother with ranges. I don't need to know whether the biker should drive up from the left or the right, probably depends on what we intends to do (attack the driver? Left then), which is about the ficition, not about the rules. If you're a human, you probably can't grapple an ox, and if you want to grapple a pixie, well, it will probably dodge you (which will be part of most combat rules). I don't even know if I could tell you the difference between a shotgun and a battle rifle from looking at them, though I have a vague idea that a shotgun can target multiple opponents at short range or something like that. But none of these questions holds my interest sufficiently to be willing to memorize, look up or make up rules for them beyond saying "okay, that should be a +2" or "that's an advantage on your side."And yes, I think CoC having sanity rules is fine, because they are thematically a core tenet of the game, as combat is for D&D. If an RPG has a thematic core (like most of them have), usually you'll have some more rules about it, because these situations will come up more often, and you want more variety and depth to them on a rules level as well. I'm fine with that. And while of course you can say: "Well, a good rpg should offer that variety and depth for ALL situations!", that might be your preference, but you can't tell me that the mental load of subsystems for any conceivable situation from sanity to playing baseball to having a long-term romance is less than the mental load of a system that just provides you with a robust core resolution system that will work for pretty much everything that's not the core focus of it. It doesn't limit what I can do with the system. It just means that some situations will be handled in a more general way; and if I really notice that a certain type of situation comes up frequently enough for me to need MORE depth than the rules provide, I would probably write a more extensive house-rule for it, yes. But as far as I remember, this never happened to me in nearly 40 years of gaming. I've only ever felt that I needed LESS depth than the rules offered.</blockquote>

Verification