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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dorian_Grey" data-source="post: 6852574" data-attributes="member: 6801878">Disclaimer: Everything below is strictly my opinion. I don't believe that there is any quantitative way to evaluate a game system that would apply to every human being. Some people will like what I write, some people won't - and I'm totally okay with that! What I find fun and what others find fun are probably not the same thing, and frankly the world would be a terribly boring place if it was.I've been trying to think about how to answer this question without going off on a rant! What it comes down to, in my mind, is this:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Backgrounds & World Building</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Modular" Style Tools</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Rules as Optional vs. Rules as Written</li> </ol>I'll tackle these below:Backgrounds & World BuildingOne of the big things that I loved about AD&D 2nd Edition was the emphasis on campaign worlds, but also on providing so much fluff that you could go for years without exhausting it all. As an example of this I purchased three books shortly after publication: Creative Campaigning, Arms & Equipment Guide, and Castle Guide. Those were the old Dungeon Master Guide Rules Supplements or the Blue Books. I still use them today. I have not even tackled 25% of the material in them. At the rate I'm going, I'll use up everything in those books by the time I turn 140. I don't think I'm going to make it to 140 years old!But it gets worse. Then the Player's Option series was released. Now, a lot of people hate on those books - they see them as rules creep. And they're right if you take them as "Player's Options" literally. However, each started with a very firm statement: NOTHING IN THIS BOOK IS KOSHER WITHOUT DM APPROVAL. I paraphrase, but I'll come back to that in my third point.Modular Style ToolsDue to not being so concerned about balance as creating a fun experience, the rules often were fairly disjointed. For example, a thief with a 9 dexterity could still do well because their thief skills (%) could still be fairly high - not everything was tied to one universal mechanic. A low INT wizard, still used wizard saves instead of being hit by that low INT score. Secondary skills and proficiency skills were all optional, but if you added them they could be as granular or as open as you like. No single tool in the AD&D 2nd Edition set was required for any other tool to work. So the player tools (classes, races) didn't need the kit tool to handle anything the DM had in his or her toolbox (monsters, traps). More modules could be put on the table (Spells & Magic, Combat & Tactics) and the DM could pick and choose what he or she wanted to include without the level of pain that happens with 3rd and 4th.This is one of the reasons I feel the OGL content for 3rd often met such resistance - although the concepts included were often fine trying to incorporate it into a single mechanic system was so difficult. Additionally, I feel happiest about adding rules to 5e when I break away from the single mechanic system.Rules as Optional vs. Rules as WrittenHere is the official statement in Player's Option: Spells & Magic on the rules within the book:"Like any of the PLAYER'S OPTION books, the material in this supplement is optional. The DM is free to use as much or as little of Spells & Magic as he wishes to in his campaign." - Richard Baker, Pg 7Emphasis mine. Does the DM not like a new spell? No problem. Does the DM only want to include the madness rules? That's a'okay! Including, or not including, any one specific aspect of the game does not have a negative aspect on any other aspect of the game. Now, 3rd and 4th included some comment to this effect but there was a much bigger emphasis on the rules as written and how the rules HAD to be used in order for "balance" to be maintained, or whatever. Which is exactly what Wizards of the Coast wanted. Even if you did decide to incorporate or remove a specific aspect of something, it could actually be damaging. As a result, you're better off just leaving it alone. 5th edition has gone back to "What the DM says, goes" and I like that but the rules are still very tightly bound together.On the other hand, the 3rd Edition equivalent, Tome & Blood, was listed as optional - but much of it's material, such as metamagic would become standardized within the Wizards of the Coast thinking. Additionally, the rule book provided clarification and commentary on official rules within the PHB that WERE direct commentaries from WotC. So yes, you could ignore it - but the rules commentary nature (something that Spells and Magic attempted to avoid) reinforced the Rules as Written paradigm.</blockquote>

Verification