Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="greywulf" data-source="post: 3393664" data-attributes="member: 4285">Rolling up your sleeves is good <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Welcome to the Campaign For Minimal Rules (CaFMR), Nathan. It's good to see folks wanting simplicity in their gaming.When it came to stacking, in <a href="http://home.greywulf.net/m20/" target="_blank">Microlite20</a> I just decided to not worry about it at all, taking the most minimal of all possible solutions. That, after all, was the goal behind the game. I decided to trust the DM to Do The Right Thing at the time, something that seems to be anathema to current D&amp;D mentality. But ah, well.IMO, I think that the way stacking works in D&amp;D is one of the best ideas in the game. It's simply explained, and easy to implement - just what a good rule should be. There's plenty of other stuff I'd toss out (and have!) before looking at this.So saying, your suggestion of just allowing one bonus to apply (plus situational modifiers, of course) is a workable substitute. It's the exceptions to the rule that might cause the headaches. AC would be the biggest exception, as you point out. Armour, shield, natural armour and spells would need some common sense applying, but that's nothing a good DM can't handle. Eliminating stacking won't make much of a difference at low levels, where the characters are lucky to have one bonus (heh. Mean DM!), but at higher levels when the characters might have multiple spell effects, magical weaponry plus bonuses from clothing, gauntlets, rings, etc, you may end up having to make most judgement calls without stacking than you will with it in place. Just a thought!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="greywulf, post: 3393664, member: 4285"] Rolling up your sleeves is good :) Welcome to the Campaign For Minimal Rules (CaFMR), Nathan. It's good to see folks wanting simplicity in their gaming. When it came to stacking, in [URL=http://home.greywulf.net/m20/]Microlite20[/URL] I just decided to not worry about it at all, taking the most minimal of all possible solutions. That, after all, was the goal behind the game. I decided to trust the DM to Do The Right Thing at the time, something that seems to be anathema to current D&D mentality. But ah, well. IMO, I think that the way stacking works in D&D is one of the best ideas in the game. It's simply explained, and easy to implement - just what a good rule should be. There's plenty of other stuff I'd toss out (and have!) before looking at this. So saying, your suggestion of just allowing one bonus to apply (plus situational modifiers, of course) is a workable substitute. It's the exceptions to the rule that might cause the headaches. AC would be the biggest exception, as you point out. Armour, shield, natural armour and spells would need some common sense applying, but that's nothing a good DM can't handle. Eliminating stacking won't make much of a difference at low levels, where the characters are lucky to have one bonus (heh. Mean DM!), but at higher levels when the characters might have multiple spell effects, magical weaponry plus bonuses from clothing, gauntlets, rings, etc, you may end up having to make most judgement calls without stacking than you will with it in place. Just a thought! [/QUOTE]

Verification