Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 2779010" data-attributes="member: 13892">Okay... now perhaps you could answer the question that I asked. What makes a written rule more optional (not different) than a choice that isn't disallowed by the rules? The above answer explains how the two things are different in terms of presentation, but does not address what makes one more optional than the other. By definition, they're both options - and options aren't measured in degrees. There's no such thing as a 'more optional option' - more appealing options, sure, but more optional options? Nope. An option is an option is an option. Again, you're asserting that rules equal options - which isn't necessarily the case. Do you have a written rulebook that tells you how to put your pants on in the morning? No? Then pants must not be an option according to your logic. D'oh! Obviously you still have the option to put on your pants in the morning even though there isn't a rule book telling you how to do it. Or maybe you don't, but I seriously doubt it. So.... how 'bout it? Are you wearing pants right now? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It does have something to do with the system. Rules, by design, govern how things work and in doing so they specifically state that things work like this and not like that. That is, they embrace one approach to a given situation at the expense of all others. A system that doesn't codify a given circumstance in specific terms excludes no approach to the situation by design. Note that (as the pants example proves), not having  written rules that tell you how to do something does not exclude that something as an option. I'm just a liar, then? Is that your big rebuttal? You've said this twice now, so it would be really cool if you took the time to explain why this is instead of simply parroting that this is the case without offering any explanation that speaks directly to the matter. Why are the things I say untrue? They're supported by simple logic and over thirty years of gameplay by hundreds of thousands of people. Are they just untrue because you don't agree with them? 'Cause that's the vibe I'm getting here. Check out Traveller, Risus, Over the Edge, Pandemonium, Castles & Crusades, Core Elements, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Window, and hundreds of other games then. They all manage to represent unique and dynamic characters with short stat blocks (and, again, somebody demonstrated this with Traveller in this very thread). Your assertion might hold water if you ignore the fact that all of these other games exist, but otherwise it's a sieve. A really big sieve riddled with thirty years worth of hundreds of holes. This thread isn't about 'one line' stat blocks, though - merely about condensed stat blocks. And again, more ink on the page doesn't necessarily mean fewer options. If it did, we'd all live in a world without pants <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification