Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4944879" data-attributes="member: 80487">Yes, on demand being a notable qualifier -- as well as the provision that &quot;dial down&quot; need not include any more subtle adjustment than tossing the rules wholesale. The more, and the more carefully balanced and integrated, the adjustments, the less difference there is between the process and the design of &quot;complex and/or fiddly rules&quot; from the ground up.I like to have plenty of truly optional resources, from the 0e Ready Ref Sheets to the 1e DMG and beyond. &quot;Whipping that up on the fly&quot; all at once obviously did not and does not happen -- nor need it (although it's nifty to be able to pull a cornucopia someone else has written off the shelf). Embellishments pretty naturally build up gradually as the players find use for them.So long as they are truly modular, one can easily pull them out and plug them in. I know from personal experience that it is easier -- in the sense of requiring less careful consideration -- to develop a complex structure of interwoven dependencies than to disassemble it and keep it running smoothly.The consent of players to toss much of 3e or 4e (or Hackmaster or GURPS, etc.) is probably (and quite reasonably) rarely given. More likely is that they choose the game because, like Herobizkit, they &quot;enjoy the fiddly bits&quot;. If the &quot;builds&quot;, the &quot;skill systems&quot;, the hour-long combats and the intricate and integrated game balances were not so important, then folks could simply play some other game with fewer rules and more GM rulings.Cut out the powers, the skill ratings and &quot;challenges&quot;, the combat board game, the &quot;magic-item economy&quot; ... and is the gutted husk that's left really worthy of the name &quot;4e&quot;? What would be the point, when we could have started with (e.g.) Labyrinth Lord instead and saved money as well?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4944879, member: 80487"] Yes, [B]on demand[/B] being a notable qualifier -- as well as the provision that "dial down" need not include any more subtle adjustment than tossing the rules wholesale. The more, and the more carefully balanced and integrated, the adjustments, the less difference there is between the process and the design of "complex and/or fiddly rules" from the ground up. I like to have plenty of truly [B]optional[/B] resources, from the 0e Ready Ref Sheets to the 1e DMG and beyond. "Whipping that up on the fly" all at once obviously did not and does not happen -- nor [I]need[/I] it (although it's nifty to be able to pull a cornucopia someone else has written off the shelf). Embellishments pretty naturally build up gradually as the players find use for them. So long as they are truly modular, one can easily pull them out and plug them in. I know from personal experience that it is easier -- in the sense of requiring less careful consideration -- to develop a complex structure of interwoven dependencies than to disassemble it and keep it running smoothly. The consent of players to toss much of 3e or 4e (or Hackmaster or GURPS, etc.) is probably (and quite reasonably) rarely given. More likely is that they choose the game because, like Herobizkit, they "enjoy the fiddly bits". If the "builds", the "skill systems", the hour-long combats and the intricate and integrated game balances were not so important, then folks could simply play some other game with fewer rules and more GM rulings. Cut out the powers, the skill ratings and "challenges", the combat board game, the "magic-item economy" ... and is the gutted husk that's left really worthy of the name "4e"? What would be the point, when we could have started with (e.g.) Labyrinth Lord instead and saved money as well? [/QUOTE]

Verification