Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3107307" data-attributes="member: 22779">I am wary of using such a loaded word as &quot;better&quot;.&nbsp; I am not trying for an edition war here.&nbsp; Believe it or not.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; My point isn't that 3e is better, it's just that the arguement that 3e is more difficult to houserule falls on its face because of the transparency of the rules.With unified mechanics that are open to anyone reading them, and mechanics that use the same language throughout, it becomes a much simpler task to change the rules.&nbsp; If the language is convoluted to begin with, and there are numerous similar but separate rules that also share some, but not all of the language, then determining how far something will spread when changed becomes a much more difficult task.The arguement, at least as far as I can see, for 3e being so difficult to modify, goes something like this:&nbsp; The rules are highly integrated, thus any change will have huge rippling effects that cause the game to fall apart.&nbsp; The other arguement tends to coattail on this by saying that because the ripple effects are so widespread, it becomes impossible to determine what effects a given change will have.My argument is that because the rules are written with design and redesign in mind, in plain language with as little ambiguity as possible, AND that any new rule which adds ambiguity is automatically rejected as poorly designed, designing new rules is actually not a terribly difficult task.&nbsp; Time consuming perhaps, but not byzantine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3107307, member: 22779"] I am wary of using such a loaded word as "better". I am not trying for an edition war here. Believe it or not. :p My point isn't that 3e is better, it's just that the arguement that 3e is more difficult to houserule falls on its face because of the transparency of the rules. With unified mechanics that are open to anyone reading them, and mechanics that use the same language throughout, it becomes a much simpler task to change the rules. If the language is convoluted to begin with, and there are numerous similar but separate rules that also share some, but not all of the language, then determining how far something will spread when changed becomes a much more difficult task. The arguement, at least as far as I can see, for 3e being so difficult to modify, goes something like this: The rules are highly integrated, thus any change will have huge rippling effects that cause the game to fall apart. The other arguement tends to coattail on this by saying that because the ripple effects are so widespread, it becomes impossible to determine what effects a given change will have. My argument is that because the rules are written with design and redesign in mind, in plain language with as little ambiguity as possible, AND that any new rule which adds ambiguity is automatically rejected as poorly designed, designing new rules is actually not a terribly difficult task. Time consuming perhaps, but not byzantine. [/QUOTE]

Verification