Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5809542" data-attributes="member: 8461">I have a lot of trouble with this statement, and not just because of the implication that that wanting the rules to cover a lot of concepts (not "everything") is something only computers would want.For one thing, the idea of "a system which is easy to house rule" is an incredibly loaded statement. The idea of what's "easy" to house rule is something you'll never get gamers to agree on; even moreso when you try and apply this definition across different areas that people want to house rule to begin with.Likewise, the idea of "returning power to the players and the DMs" also strikes me as weird. Returning the power from who? My books were never going to beat me up if I tried to change any of the rules in them (notwithstanding that one...but I killed it when I broke its spine). Like He-Man, I have the power, and always have.A modular system, built with multiple options that are mutually balanced, should allow for a high degree of character customization, both in terms of complexity and design. If it can't marry two different themes though, such as a low-complexity wizard who casts at-wills, without a house rule, then it's not a question of how easy it is to house rule something...that's a gap in the system.To put it another way, I reject the <a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy-design.html" target="_blank">Rule 0 Fallacy</a>:Now, a gap in the rules isn't quite the same thing as a broken rule, but it's still an area that requires the GM to solve the problem in the rules. That's not a feature of the system; it's a bug.</blockquote>

Verification