Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 2987926" data-attributes="member: 10479">Hussar, I think I see why we have not been connecting.I think you may have gone off on another track that is a topic for a different discussion.  Are you, in simplest terms, just saying you do not want D&D to change in 4E unless the new rules are completely optional and merely addons to 3.x?Are you having trouble with the way in which the rules are explained or are you having trouble with the rules themselves? Explaining the rules in simple terms is a goal for all game writing.  Everyone agrees with that so it's really not the issue being debated here.  The debate is over whether the design philosophy should be for non-complex game rules explained simply (which I hasten to point out *would* mean removing much of what is 3.x) or complex game rules explained simply (which I further point out *could* mean keeping much of 3.x but explaining it more accessibly).  It's my contention that stripping away everything not used in a brief combat scenario is the former and not a worthy goal.Is this an issue for you because you are concerned how the rules will be explained or how the rules will actually function?  You seem to be concerned about the former while claiming the latter.  You seem to be tying the two issues together when they need not be.This seems to be an area where you feel complexity is superfluous.  But I have to ask, "Would you prefer rules for AoOs didn't exist or that they were written more plainly?"Arguments that I have witnessed over things like AoO are often about how the rules function but are, at the same time, often about how they are interpreted as written, some claiming one interpretation allows the rules to function better, others going with a differing interpretation.  Both generally enjoy the complexity of the rules but might find the wording of them ambiguous.  This is really an argument for keeping the complexity but explaining it more clearly.I think at the heart of this discussion it has become plain to me that you actually mean that you want the rules explained simply but kept complex.  You seem to want the rules written elegantly and to handle a broad range of challenges (and multiple styles of games) but for any intelligent person to be able to understand them on the first reading.  I think we are really on the same page.</blockquote>

Verification