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: 5810111" data-attributes="member: 8461">Wow, looks like somebody took my rebuttal a little too personally. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Unfortunately, you failed your Read Post check, otherwise you'd have seen where I said this (emphasis mine):Not after I get through with providing playtest feedback.Seriously, you really got a natural 1 on that aforementioned check, didn't you? Not sure who you're directing that too, since nobody that I've read said it, but maybe they'll chime in.First, there's no "supposed" to - saying that is equivalent to throwing out "badwrongfun" accusations.Second, my imagination is going to what I can do with the rules. When the rules fail to give me the tools to make what I want, then there's a problem with that. Saying that's not a problem is just the Rule 0 Fallacy again.Yes, you can tinker with the system, and yes, that can be fun, but that's not something that's intentionally designed into the game. The designers aren't looking for areas specifically not to do for the purpose of letting people do it themselves.Finally, my "certainty" is something only you've called it. I'm simply highlighting an example based on the little we've heard, third-hand, through the playtest reports to illustrate a point.More hyperbole? Your attempt to conflate my stance of "gaps in the rules are bad" with "EVERYTHING MUST BE PRE-WRITTEN!!1!1!!" isn't working.No kidding, since that's not what I'm talking about.I draw the line at the game having gaps in the rules being a positive feature. Clearly you want a game with large areas that aren't touched upon.Playing the game is defined by the people playing it. The game rules are defined by what's in the books. I just want them to not have areas that are lacking. I never once said they need to cover everything.This isn't wrong, it's just completely divorced from what I'm talking about.The more expansive the system, the less need for house rules to begin with. Less interacting mechanical bits increase the likelihood that a house rule will be needed, which since most GMs aren't game designers, leaves open the possibility that the house rule is lopsided or otherwise makes things worse.Also, keep in mind that judgment calls aren't the same thing as house rules.</blockquote>

Verification