Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What If....4E had been a modular option sub-set for 3.5?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6239361" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Well, I tried to word my post to make clear that I was talking about rules consistency and coherence *as a set of rules*. What you are talking about here is coherency between the rule set and the game world, which I agree is a different thing (and I don't think that this was well done in early 4E, FWIW).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, internal coherency in the rules is exactly what I'm talking about. I think it's important because, for me, if the rules themselves aren't coherent I don't even get as far as worrying about the coherency they have with the game world. It's like someone saying "here is a world where the physics as defined don't work out"; the fact that the people in the world seem to be assuming a different set of physics again is secondary, to me - I get stuck at the "this world's physics don't work" stage!</p><p></p><p>For me, then, internal rules consistency comes first. That is NOT to say that it's the only important thing, but its what is required as a precondition for the rest to be worth tackling. And I find the rest (fitting the world to the rules effects, fitting the characters' expectations to the world "realities" and so on) to be relatively easy to fix once I have a coherent rule set.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I maybe had a head start in this area, because I moved from running D&D to other RPGs around 1980 or so because of the trouble I was having with rules incoherency and D&D not doing what I wanted out of an RPG at that time*. As a result I tried many systems and started to discover that systems are often better when they set out to do one thing well; find that one thing and you can generally enjoy the system. Try to bend the system for what it's not designed for and it often falls short. What it seemed to me many D&D players were doing was making up their own systems - from rulings and house rules - that fitted what they wanted to do. The downside with that is that it is much harder for the players (as opposed to the GM) to learn the system when it's not written down. As an aside, I think this is one reason many players dislike the idea of learning new rules sets - they have the expectation that reading the rules will not be what is required to learn the rules and that, in a sense, reading the rules is only a (partially misleading) preliminary to "really learning the rules" that will come from "learning the DM". Rebellion against this same "feature" might factor into the phenomenon of "rules lawyers", as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't want to risk turning this into another long and rambling thread full of tired old (non-)arguments and <em>ad hominem</em> attacks like a certain other hereabouts, but I agree 100% with all of this.</p><p></p><p>*: I didn't see the issues clearly then, I should say. I thought in terms of "realism" being needed and looked for what, in retrospect, I recognise as coherency in game world physics through making them the same as real world physics. When I eventually realised that sufficient understanding of the real world to fully model it was functionally impossible, I moved on to realise that what was important was working, coherent game world "physics", not a rule set that closely modelled the real world. If I talk of "my philosophy" for roleplaying games I think it gives the impression that I have a static, unchanging "philosophy"; I don't, but what I have now has evolved slowly over a great many years (and is almost certainly evolving still).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6239361, member: 27160"] Well, I tried to word my post to make clear that I was talking about rules consistency and coherence *as a set of rules*. What you are talking about here is coherency between the rule set and the game world, which I agree is a different thing (and I don't think that this was well done in early 4E, FWIW). Yes, internal coherency in the rules is exactly what I'm talking about. I think it's important because, for me, if the rules themselves aren't coherent I don't even get as far as worrying about the coherency they have with the game world. It's like someone saying "here is a world where the physics as defined don't work out"; the fact that the people in the world seem to be assuming a different set of physics again is secondary, to me - I get stuck at the "this world's physics don't work" stage! For me, then, internal rules consistency comes first. That is NOT to say that it's the only important thing, but its what is required as a precondition for the rest to be worth tackling. And I find the rest (fitting the world to the rules effects, fitting the characters' expectations to the world "realities" and so on) to be relatively easy to fix once I have a coherent rule set. I think I maybe had a head start in this area, because I moved from running D&D to other RPGs around 1980 or so because of the trouble I was having with rules incoherency and D&D not doing what I wanted out of an RPG at that time*. As a result I tried many systems and started to discover that systems are often better when they set out to do one thing well; find that one thing and you can generally enjoy the system. Try to bend the system for what it's not designed for and it often falls short. What it seemed to me many D&D players were doing was making up their own systems - from rulings and house rules - that fitted what they wanted to do. The downside with that is that it is much harder for the players (as opposed to the GM) to learn the system when it's not written down. As an aside, I think this is one reason many players dislike the idea of learning new rules sets - they have the expectation that reading the rules will not be what is required to learn the rules and that, in a sense, reading the rules is only a (partially misleading) preliminary to "really learning the rules" that will come from "learning the DM". Rebellion against this same "feature" might factor into the phenomenon of "rules lawyers", as well. I don't want to risk turning this into another long and rambling thread full of tired old (non-)arguments and [I]ad hominem[/I] attacks like a certain other hereabouts, but I agree 100% with all of this. *: I didn't see the issues clearly then, I should say. I thought in terms of "realism" being needed and looked for what, in retrospect, I recognise as coherency in game world physics through making them the same as real world physics. When I eventually realised that sufficient understanding of the real world to fully model it was functionally impossible, I moved on to realise that what was important was working, coherent game world "physics", not a rule set that closely modelled the real world. If I talk of "my philosophy" for roleplaying games I think it gives the impression that I have a static, unchanging "philosophy"; I don't, but what I have now has evolved slowly over a great many years (and is almost certainly evolving still). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What If....4E had been a modular option sub-set for 3.5?
Top