Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3881574" data-attributes="member: 42582">Celebrim, these are very interesting posts. Your characterisation of 3.5 reminds me, in a somewhat roundabout way, of Rolemaster (especially RM2). RM is often accused of rules and options bloat. This is true in the area of action resolution mechanics - and especially, for some reason, initiative rules - where the RM Companions are full of pointless variations and epicycles on ever-more-obscure action resolution options. HARP is developing the same problem in respect of combat sytems, with 4 different options now in print.Your posts suggest to me that 3.5 has a similar sort of problem, but on the character build side rather than the action resolution side. (Which is, of course, economically more rational - players will pay for character build options, whereas typically only GMs care about action resolution options). What I would be interested to see in 4e would be a core set of character build mechanics that allow for variety, and a wide range of viable character concepts, without unnecessary and ever-more self-referential rules bloat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 3881574, member: 42582"] Celebrim, these are very interesting posts. Your characterisation of 3.5 reminds me, in a somewhat roundabout way, of Rolemaster (especially RM2). RM is often accused of rules and options bloat. This is true in the area of action resolution mechanics - and especially, for some reason, initiative rules - where the RM Companions are full of pointless variations and epicycles on ever-more-obscure action resolution options. HARP is developing the same problem in respect of combat sytems, with 4 different options now in print. Your posts suggest to me that 3.5 has a similar sort of problem, but on the character build side rather than the action resolution side. (Which is, of course, economically more rational - players will pay for character build options, whereas typically only GMs care about action resolution options). What I would be interested to see in 4e would be a core set of character build mechanics that allow for variety, and a wide range of viable character concepts, without unnecessary and ever-more self-referential rules bloat. [/QUOTE]

Verification