Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 372932" data-attributes="member: 5890">Just one thing - in general, if you are writing technically (as I would expect you'd be when writing the nuts-and-bolts of something like a game system), it is considered good writing technique to use the simplest word which describes what you mean. Especially in fields such as engineering and science. I would hope that people don't consider these fields &quot;dumbed-down&quot; simply because of this fact. The point is to concisely convey your meaning, not compete in the world vocabulary stakes.Next up - rules-light versus rules-heavy is an argument that persists across roleplaying as a whole. Some people like rules-light, some people like rules-heavy. That's it. That's all there is to it. Neither is better, and certainly neither is superior. Both are superior to a rules-heavy system which fails to supply what you need in it's rules, or a rules-light system which restricts your running of a game.The same goes for classed vs classless. I fail to see how D&amp;D still qualifies as a classed system - with the freer multiclassing rules which are available, I don't see how any characters are being needlessly restricted. Certainly the restrictions applied are no more severe than those in the WoD games. They're certainly a lot looser than other games out there in which a character has one and only one direction in which to develop.Magic items, and the diablo syndrome... It's the nethack system thank you very much. And before that it was the rogue system, and before that it was... D&amp;D.&nbsp; Altered, certainly, but it still started out being D&amp;D. And if there was one thing in D&amp;D which set different members of a class apart, it was the amount of magic items they were carrying, and what those items let them do. That didn't change in 2nd edition. And noone played players option because it was so utterly broken. 3rd ed broke the character-defined-by-his-gear mould, which is why magic items can now be distributed in a free and sane manner. Rather than the &quot;despite all the magic lying around in dungeons, noone in normal society owns them&quot; rubbish that was prevalent in 1st and 2nd ed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 372932, member: 5890"] Just one thing - in general, if you are writing technically (as I would expect you'd be when writing the nuts-and-bolts of something like a game system), it is considered good writing technique to use the simplest word which describes what you mean. Especially in fields such as engineering and science. I would hope that people don't consider these fields "dumbed-down" simply because of this fact. The point is to concisely convey your meaning, not compete in the world vocabulary stakes. Next up - rules-light versus rules-heavy is an argument that persists across roleplaying as a whole. Some people like rules-light, some people like rules-heavy. That's it. That's all there is to it. Neither is better, and certainly neither is superior. Both are superior to a rules-heavy system which fails to supply what you need in it's rules, or a rules-light system which restricts your running of a game. The same goes for classed vs classless. I fail to see how D&D still qualifies as a classed system - with the freer multiclassing rules which are available, I don't see how any characters are being needlessly restricted. Certainly the restrictions applied are no more severe than those in the WoD games. They're certainly a lot looser than other games out there in which a character has one and only one direction in which to develop. Magic items, and the diablo syndrome... It's the nethack system thank you very much. And before that it was the rogue system, and before that it was... D&D. Altered, certainly, but it still started out being D&D. And if there was one thing in D&D which set different members of a class apart, it was the amount of magic items they were carrying, and what those items let them do. That didn't change in 2nd edition. And noone played players option because it was so utterly broken. 3rd ed broke the character-defined-by-his-gear mould, which is why magic items can now be distributed in a free and sane manner. Rather than the "despite all the magic lying around in dungeons, noone in normal society owns them" rubbish that was prevalent in 1st and 2nd ed. [/QUOTE]

Verification