Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4018551" data-attributes="member: 5143">Well, it can still be internally consistent and have exceptions to rules.  Real life is "internally consistent" and still has exceptions to rules all the time.I mean, if you were analyzing real life as if it were a game, you might wonder why it is why some materials melt at a certain temperature and others melt at a different one.  You might wonder why one set of physics works at the subatomic level while another one works at bigger than that, why you people taller than x can ride the ride but no one under that can, why some people are male and others aren't, etc.All rules have exceptions and reasons.  Some we understand, some we don't.  Sometimes the reason is readily apparent, sometimes you need to have someone explain the reason for it.I don't think that this needs to be "fanwank".  Take for example, an employer saying that you aren't allowed to use the internet for personal things while at work and explaining it by saying that it is losing them money.  Meanwhile another department in the same company is allowed to use it for personal things because "they need it as a stress reliever".  That is a "reason".  You may not agree with the inconsistency involved in the rule, but it is one anyways.Most rules SEEM inconsistent unless you know more about.  Some of the greatest mysteries of the real world made no sense to anyone at all until science eventually explained them.When I think of any in game rule, I think of it the same way: "Does this game the game more balanced and more fun for the players mechanically?  If so, I can make up a reason to fit the rule...or at the worst case scenario I can use "Scholars and mages haven't been able to answer that question yet, it is a great mystery."Either way, I'd rather have the mechanically sound rule that was harder to explain than the mechanically bad rule that made perfect sense.Well, there are a number of issues that come up when you have multiple DMs.  More than just this one.  I don't think the game was ever intended to be used with multiple DMs in the first place.  I really don't think that a game that catered to this sort of thing should be what they should be aiming for.I love rules that raise questions.  Some of my favorite parts of role playing books are when something completely comprehensible is said without a reason for it.  They inspire the most creativity in me.And there are a lot of them in the game.  It's just that people normally house rule them or gloss over them when it comes to explaining them.I love the idea that rings can't be used until high level.  Whereas, I'm sure that the reason for it is a math one(bonuses that rings give break the formulas if added before 11th level), the real reason can be whatever I want and it can be the root of plots in my world if I wanted to or explained using a simple explanation and move on with playing mechanically interesting games.D&D has never simulated everything.  It has only ever simulated D&D Fantasy.  The thing about D&D fantasy is that is has always had a kitchen sink feeling to it.  If it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be in D&D.  Which has actually caused some of the internal consistency issues you don't like.If magic imbued into staves creates charged items, why do runestaves work differently?  If a belt of giant strength can be made why can't a earring of giant strength?  And if it can be made, why does it cost more?  And what slot does it take up?  If it is the head slot, why does putting on an earring suddenly make your helmet stop working?  The answer to all of those questions is easy: Balance and creating a fun game.  The in game reason?  Something about certain magics having affinity for certain parts of your body.In 4th edition they are actually going for MORE consistency by saying "All rings give this type of bonus and can't be worn until 11th level", "All neck slot items give you this type of bonus", and so on.</blockquote>

Verification