Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6323039" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Yeah, I'm always the one running the game, and I have never had a problem saying &quot;not in my campaign&quot; or &quot;we're going with this, even if it's not in the rulebook.&quot;At the same time, when creating my own RPG, I wanted the mechanics very clearly defined, so that when players made decisions, it would be fully informed. I didn't want them to have to rely on anyone else; if they wanted a character who could scale houses and jump from rooftop to rooftop, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a character that was great at convincing groups of people to follow him, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a a character that was able to climb a dragon's back while fihgting it, or shoot it in the eye to avoid the armored scales, here's how it's spelled out in the rules.Of course, I get that the level of nuance I want is too much for a lot of people. I get that a lot of people have an understandable aversion to looking something up in the rulebook while playing the game. I get that people value speed and simplicity. I just value solid, reliable rules more than speed and simplicity. I want rules for things, and I want them spelled out in a way that empowers players to make informed decisions.Again, though, I totally get why people value simplicity. I've had a lot of fun playing simple games in other genres. So, to each their own, and good luck to 5e. I might play in it, but I can't see myself ever running it. I still hope it succeeds, though. D&amp;D succeeding is good for the industry, and good for the fantasy genre in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6323039, member: 6668292"] Yeah, I'm always the one running the game, and I have never had a problem saying "not in my campaign" or "we're going with this, even if it's not in the rulebook." At the same time, when creating my own RPG, I wanted the mechanics very clearly defined, so that when players made decisions, it would be fully informed. I didn't want them to have to rely on anyone else; if they wanted a character who could scale houses and jump from rooftop to rooftop, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a character that was great at convincing groups of people to follow him, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. If they wanted a a character that was able to climb a dragon's back while fihgting it, or shoot it in the eye to avoid the armored scales, here's how it's spelled out in the rules. Of course, I get that the level of nuance I want is too much for a lot of people. I get that a lot of people have an understandable aversion to looking something up in the rulebook while playing the game. I get that people value speed and simplicity. I just value solid, reliable rules more than speed and simplicity. I want rules for things, and I want them spelled out in a way that empowers players to make informed decisions. Again, though, I totally get why people value simplicity. I've had a lot of fun playing simple games in other genres. So, to each their own, and good luck to 5e. I might play in it, but I can't see myself ever running it. I still hope it succeeds, though. D&D succeeding is good for the industry, and good for the fantasy genre in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification