Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9016413" data-attributes="member: 7006">Well, I'm one of those people that probably (mistakenly) thinks that a DM with a giant sheaf of house rules like that actually IS looking for a much more robust combat-sim game experience.&nbsp; Because the reason to write all those dozens and dozens of rules down is so that the DM and players can always reference back to them, so that there is an everlong consistency of how their game should be played.&nbsp; The idea that for the game to have meaning, it has to be run and played the exact same way all the time so that players always have that consistency of knowledge and expectation so that they can make &quot;tactically correct&quot; moves.&nbsp; And if you don't have all these corner-cases written down, then you can't get that consistency.&nbsp; (But I freely admit I'm probably putting more emphasis on this idea than probably other intend or believe, so that's my fault.)As opposed to the opposite method (that I subscribe to) of just making up a ruling in the moment when something occurs that there's no rule to reference... and then forgetting about it.&nbsp; And if/when that moment shows up again some time down the line-- next month, next year, next campaign-- the DM just again makes up a new ruling based on the new situation, even if that new ruling ends up being different than what they ruled the first time.&nbsp; Not that any of us would even remember if it WAS different.&nbsp; And to me that's perfectly okay.I know that bugs some people... the idea that a DM could possibly rule the relatively same situation two different ways at two different times... but I just don't have that same problem with it.&nbsp; To me, the D&amp;D board game is so wishy-washy and merely representative that the requirement that the game always be the same just seems like a whole lot of work for little gain to me.&nbsp; We play the game as-is because it's part and parcel of the D&amp;D experience... but it's not so important that it be bronzed or carved in stone.And while I can't say whether the designers agree or disagree with my take or yours... the fact that their designs seem to often sit between both of us leads me to think that the whole thing is a pick-and-choose situation.&nbsp; Some things one person finds important get embraced in the design... other things are not.&nbsp; And we all end up getting only a part of what we probably would wish to have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9016413, member: 7006"] Well, I'm one of those people that probably (mistakenly) thinks that a DM with a giant sheaf of house rules like that actually IS looking for a much more robust combat-sim game experience. Because the reason to write all those dozens and dozens of rules down is so that the DM and players can always reference back to them, so that there is an everlong consistency of how their game should be played. The idea that for the game to have meaning, it has to be run and played the exact same way all the time so that players always have that consistency of knowledge and expectation so that they can make "tactically correct" moves. And if you don't have all these corner-cases written down, then you can't get that consistency. (But I freely admit I'm probably putting more emphasis on this idea than probably other intend or believe, so that's my fault.) As opposed to the opposite method (that I subscribe to) of just making up a ruling in the moment when something occurs that there's no rule to reference... and then forgetting about it. And if/when that moment shows up again some time down the line-- next month, next year, next campaign-- the DM just again makes up a new ruling based on the new situation, even if that new ruling ends up being different than what they ruled the first time. Not that any of us would even remember if it WAS different. And to me that's perfectly okay. I know that bugs some people... the idea that a DM could possibly rule the relatively same situation two different ways at two different times... but I just don't have that same problem with it. To me, the D&D board game is so wishy-washy and merely representative that the requirement that the game always be the same just seems like a whole lot of work for little gain to me. We play the game as-is because it's part and parcel of the D&D experience... but it's not so important that it be bronzed or carved in stone. And while I can't say whether the designers agree or disagree with my take or yours... the fact that their designs seem to often sit between both of us leads me to think that the whole thing is a pick-and-choose situation. Some things one person finds important get embraced in the design... other things are not. And we all end up getting only a part of what we probably would wish to have. [/QUOTE]

Verification