Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9040191" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So, on this, I think we just have a fundamental disagreement. I am, for lack of a better term, simply not interested in the &quot;good rules&quot; v. &quot;bad rules&quot; divide, and don't think it's actually germane to the topic.Think of it in two steps.1. Should there be a rule?2. Is the rule a good rule?My thoughts are usually focused on the first step. I assume that the rule will be a good rule. Much like I assume that the DM (and the players) are good at playing the game. But for that reason, the issue of &quot;good rules&quot; and &quot;bad rules&quot; is fundamentally uninteresting to me in this conversation. What makes rules &quot;good&quot; and &quot;not good&quot; can be a great conversation to have, but it's also a completely different conversation.Because ... and this is what I keep getting at ... even the bestest awesomest more clarifyingest rules ever still come with a cost.&nbsp; As I wrote- On the other hand, additional rules inevitably come with a cost- added complexity, added issues of interpretation, added issues of how different rules will intersect, and even just the cost associated with people learning more rules. This is always true! ALWAYS. Now, a lot of the time, those rules justify the costs. And when you're doing that, the quality of the rule does matter - if you're doing a cost/benefit analysis of a particular rule, you want the lowest cost and the highest benefit possible. I always assume (despite ample evidence to the contrary in the field) for purposes of these conversations that new rules are the best possible examples. And that's the point. Fundamentally, the issue of whether a rule is &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; or &quot;OMG I can't even parse it&quot; is a conversation to have after you've decided to have the rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9040191, member: 7023840"] So, on this, I think we just have a fundamental disagreement. I am, for lack of a better term, simply not interested in the "good rules" v. "bad rules" divide, and don't think it's actually germane to the topic. Think of it in two steps. 1. Should there be a rule? 2. Is the rule a good rule? My thoughts are usually focused on the first step. I assume that the rule [I]will be a good rule[/I]. Much like I assume that the DM (and the players) [I]are good at playing the game[/I]. But for that reason, the issue of "good rules" and "bad rules" is fundamentally uninteresting to me in this conversation. What makes rules "good" and "not good" can be a great conversation to have, but it's also a completely different conversation. Because ... and this is what I keep getting at ... even the bestest awesomest more clarifyingest rules ever still come with a cost. As I wrote- [I]On the other hand, additional rules inevitably come with a cost- added complexity, added issues of interpretation, added issues of how different rules will intersect, and even just the cost associated with people learning more rules.[/I] This is always true! ALWAYS. Now, a lot of the time, those rules justify the costs. And when you're doing that, the quality of the rule does matter - if you're doing a cost/benefit analysis of a particular rule, you want the lowest cost and the highest benefit possible. I always assume (despite ample evidence to the contrary in the field) for purposes of these conversations that new rules are the best possible examples. And that's the point. Fundamentally, the issue of whether a rule is "good" or "bad" or "OMG I can't even parse it" is a conversation to have after you've decided to have the rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification