Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 2780318" data-attributes="member: 3586">Indeed.However, consider this: 3e has many more rules covering character classes than 1e. 3e also allows a wider range of characters within the rules.The assumption that fewer rules = more options is not, in fact, true. It *can* be true, but it isn't a set relationship.Take this RPG ruleset:* The player can describe any action. The player then flips a coin. On a heads, the action succeeds. On a tails, the action fails.That is a complete ruleset. It limits options not at all - although not everything will succeed! I'd also hate to use it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Why are there rules for D&amp;D? It is to allow the resolution of challenges. The earliest form of the game had the challenges mainly being &quot;defeat the monster in combat&quot;. As the game has gone on, ways of overcoming further challenges have been added. Things like &quot;pick the lock and remove the trap&quot; (added in Supplement I: Greyhawk with the introduction of the thief).The methods of overcoming challenges have also grown. In oD&amp;D, there's a very limited set of methods - three classes, and a small list of spells. By AD&amp;D, there were ten classes and a much larger list of spells.The addition of spells and special abilities grows the stat-block. In AD&amp;D you might have a monster immune to fire; in 3e, you could have a monster immune to fire and resist 10 acid and electricity.In theory, you could add a new type of damage, &quot;mistletoe&quot; damage, and include immunities to it. It gets counterproductive after a while, however. That people prefer a smaller set of variables is not surprising.Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 2780318, member: 3586"] Indeed. However, consider this: 3e has many more rules covering character classes than 1e. 3e also allows a wider range of characters within the rules. The assumption that fewer rules = more options is not, in fact, true. It *can* be true, but it isn't a set relationship. Take this RPG ruleset: * The player can describe any action. The player then flips a coin. On a heads, the action succeeds. On a tails, the action fails. That is a complete ruleset. It limits options not at all - although not everything will succeed! I'd also hate to use it. :) Why are there rules for D&D? It is to allow the resolution of challenges. The earliest form of the game had the challenges mainly being "defeat the monster in combat". As the game has gone on, ways of overcoming further challenges have been added. Things like "pick the lock and remove the trap" (added in Supplement I: Greyhawk with the introduction of the thief). The methods of overcoming challenges have also grown. In oD&D, there's a very limited set of methods - three classes, and a small list of spells. By AD&D, there were ten classes and a much larger list of spells. The addition of spells and special abilities grows the stat-block. In AD&D you might have a monster immune to fire; in 3e, you could have a monster immune to fire and resist 10 acid and electricity. In theory, you could add a new type of damage, "mistletoe" damage, and include immunities to it. It gets counterproductive after a while, however. That people prefer a smaller set of variables is not surprising. Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification