Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5432594" data-attributes="member: 58197">Reading down this list, I notice a trend underlying most of it: Have more rules for X versus have fewer rules for X.That suggests that a lot of these different preferences could be accommodated in one system, if the system were sufficiently modular. For example, what if there were a set of &quot;fast combat&quot; rules for resolving minor battles at high speed, without minis and battlemats? Then the combat-maniacs could do everything with the full combat system, the story-gamers could use fast combat for everything, and the rest of us could mix and match as appropriate--fast combat for the typical fight with a handful of grunts, full combat for the climactic showdowns.Likewise with character options. Essentials has already shown how the core 4E system can be used to build a simpler, more streamlined, less option-heavy character. That could be fleshed out into a division between &quot;advanced&quot; and &quot;basic&quot; characters, say.The trick, of course, is packing all this into one ruleset, without drastically increasing the cost of supporting that ruleset. (For instance, you don't want to have to make up separate &quot;fast combat&quot; and &quot;full combat&quot; statblocks for every monster.) If they can figure out how to do that, however, the DDI approach to publication will give players and DMs tremendous latitude to customize the game to their own needs, just by clicking a couple of checkboxes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5432594, member: 58197"] Reading down this list, I notice a trend underlying most of it: [i]Have more rules for X[/i] versus [i]have fewer rules for X[/i]. That suggests that a lot of these different preferences could be accommodated in one system, if the system were sufficiently modular. For example, what if there were a set of "fast combat" rules for resolving minor battles at high speed, without minis and battlemats? Then the combat-maniacs could do everything with the full combat system, the story-gamers could use fast combat for everything, and the rest of us could mix and match as appropriate--fast combat for the typical fight with a handful of grunts, full combat for the climactic showdowns. Likewise with character options. Essentials has already shown how the core 4E system can be used to build a simpler, more streamlined, less option-heavy character. That could be fleshed out into a division between "advanced" and "basic" characters, say. The trick, of course, is packing all this into one ruleset, without drastically increasing the cost of supporting that ruleset. (For instance, you don't want to have to make up separate "fast combat" and "full combat" statblocks for every monster.) If they can figure out how to do that, however, the DDI approach to publication will give players and DMs tremendous latitude to customize the game to their own needs, just by clicking a couple of checkboxes. [/QUOTE]

Verification