Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8187136" data-attributes="member: 93670">Your own post nicey illustrates why that bolded bit is probably off.&nbsp; There might be degrees&nbsp; of &quot;I wanted more crunch than we got&quot; or &quot;I wanted crunch in other areas than we got&quot;, but the simplicity for the sake of simplicity excludes people who want crunch by removing the dials knobs &amp; hooks neededYes to a degree it's a big tent, but that means the tent needs to include wide disparate groups.&nbsp; In the case of people who want more crunch it's possible to include both people who want crunch as well as people who think that simplicity for the sake of simplicity is the best thing ever in one of a few ways<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">You include the crunch in the core &amp; add a one sentence.&nbsp; I'll use the tactical elements &amp; AoOs as an example&nbsp; &quot;variant: Optionally for a $verb $adjective game you can can choose to ignore all Attacks of Opportunity other than making a ranged attack while within reach of a hostile opponent &amp; leaving the reach of a hostile opponent without first using the disengage action&quot; </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Include hooks for the crunch but hide the crunch itself&nbsp; in a sidebar or table somewhere&nbsp; such as &quot;abilities with (Su) (Sp) tags will provoke an attack of opportunity as will making a ranged attack while threatened or moving more than 5 feet through threatened terrain without taking the disengage action&quot;</li>
</ul>The first one is going to be easier &amp; more future proofed since people who don't want the AoOs in later additions can just ignore them while future additions could trivially require a complete rewrite of the sidebar or table.&nbsp; A big tent philosophy and one true way drawing lines of exclusion to say crunch is bad so must be excluded are at odds with each other</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8187136, member: 93670"] Your own post nicey illustrates why that bolded bit is probably off. There might be degrees of "I wanted more crunch than we got" or "I wanted crunch in other areas than we got", but the simplicity for the sake of simplicity excludes people who want crunch by removing the dials knobs & hooks needed Yes to a degree it's a big tent, but that means the tent needs to include wide disparate groups. In the case of people who want more crunch it's possible to include both people who want crunch as well as people who think that simplicity for the sake of simplicity is the best thing ever in one of a few ways [LIST] [*]You include the crunch in the core & add a one sentence. I'll use the tactical elements & AoOs as an example "variant: Optionally for a $verb $adjective game you can can choose to ignore all Attacks of Opportunity other than making a ranged attack while within reach of a hostile opponent & leaving the reach of a hostile opponent without first using the disengage action" [*]Include hooks for the crunch but hide the crunch itself in a sidebar or table somewhere such as "abilities with (Su) (Sp) tags will provoke an attack of opportunity as will making a ranged attack while threatened or moving more than 5 feet through threatened terrain without taking the disengage action" [/LIST] The first one is going to be easier & more future proofed since people who don't want the AoOs in later additions can just ignore them while future additions could trivially require a complete rewrite of the sidebar or table. A big tent philosophy and one true way drawing lines of exclusion to say crunch is bad so must be excluded are at odds with each other [/QUOTE]

Verification