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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8850058" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't see it as "black and white." I see it as recognizing the fundamental commonality between all the things you've described here. All of them are design. Some of them are smaller. Some of them are larger. That doesn't change whether they are design.I never made any mention of "building a system from the ground." Something being "design" doesn't require that in the least. Especially because, in a very real sense, D&D hasn't been designed that way in decades, possibly not since 1e and certainly not since 2e. No heartbreaker has ever been designed "from the ground up," for example; by definition they ride on the coattails of some other game or games. Doesn't make them any less efforts of design.By expecting the DM to be doing this all the time, though, one is asking for an entire additional weight on top of the world-creating, the procedure-enacting, and the opposition-leading. Whether it is a thousand small rulings over six months or a whole subsystem over six months, it's still a continuous effort of design. Indeed, in some senses, the former is more of a burden than the latter; if developing large, chunky rules, one has time to pause, reevaluate, and revise. There is no such thing for the vast majority of "rulings" made in games. Any deleterious consequences they have are just...there, forever, because it's too much effort to go back and fix them. Per most advocates of this kind of thing, this should be happening near-constantly, at the very least several times every session. That's just too much stuff to go back and address for where it might have gone wrong or why--and, indeed, where it might have gone right and why, so that those successes can be replicated and (hopefully) expanded further.</blockquote>

Verification