Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5044163" data-attributes="member: 22779">I did not intend a double standard.1e required tinkering in order to be playable.&nbsp; Tomes of house rules simply to define baseline assumptions and make those assumptiosn playable.3e allowed tinkering to appeal to a wider number of gamers.&nbsp; Tomes of house rules to detail particular styles of games which differed from the baseline assumptions.You certainly didn't need many house rules to play 3e.&nbsp; It worked out of the box.&nbsp; The same is not true of 1e.&nbsp; Also, according to Raven Crowking, balance is found in a conjunction of rules and DM, not solely within the rules.&nbsp; Thus the DM is forced to change the rules in order to maintain balance.&nbsp; If balance wasn't an emergent property, then the DM would not be required to alter rules to fit.Now, I disagree that balance is required to be an emergent property.&nbsp; I also think that if you design a system in such a way that you require the DM to achieve balance in play, then balance cannot be much of a design imperative.&nbsp; In other words, you get a system which is &quot;close enough&quot; and then presume that the DM will make up the difference.This goes back to the OP and why I don't believe 1e was designed for game balance.&nbsp; Design, to me, speaks to a very formal process which I do not believe 1e ever ascribed to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5044163, member: 22779"] I did not intend a double standard. 1e [u]required[/u] tinkering in order to be playable. Tomes of house rules simply to define baseline assumptions and make those assumptiosn playable. 3e [u]allowed[/u] tinkering to appeal to a wider number of gamers. Tomes of house rules to detail particular styles of games which differed from the baseline assumptions. You certainly didn't need many house rules to play 3e. It worked out of the box. The same is not true of 1e. Also, according to Raven Crowking, balance is found in a conjunction of rules and DM, not solely within the rules. Thus the DM is forced to change the rules in order to maintain balance. If balance wasn't an emergent property, then the DM would not be required to alter rules to fit. Now, I disagree that balance is required to be an emergent property. I also think that if you design a system in such a way that you require the DM to achieve balance in play, then balance cannot be much of a design imperative. In other words, you get a system which is "close enough" and then presume that the DM will make up the difference. This goes back to the OP and why I don't believe 1e was designed for game balance. Design, to me, speaks to a very formal process which I do not believe 1e ever ascribed to. [/QUOTE]

Verification