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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 6144816" data-attributes="member: 3987">Ah so you are introducing more complexity to meet a need... like I said would happen.Indeed but in this example we were talking about a simple class based system. Ah right, I'll just write "javelins" on my character sheet as well for an unlimited supply then? A ballista is a weapon, as is an ICBM, so more of a guideline than a rule.Well it depends who you play with if something becomes a problem or not, personally I would have a problem with a character carrying 14 swords for example (and something you might want to do in D&D with various damage reductions). Certainly you can ignore encumbrance and just use common sense, which is what we have generally done in D&D, only bothering to check it is someone had exceptionally low Strength (I think I had a mage who, with robes, a staff and his spell book, meant he could carry virtually nothing else), or exceptionally high Strength. However occasionally you will get a player that will exploit a rule, simple or complex, or players and GM's will have different ideas of what common sense is.I'm providing extreme examples to illustrate the point and besides, shouldn't characters be able to pick up improvised weapons in this system? The disagreement will more likely occur somewhere nearer the middle, does a rapier do as much as greatsword, or a .22 do as much as a .50 cal?Are you giving Dragon Warriors as an example simple encumbrance system? First there is no pattern to the Strength bonus that is straight forward to work out from Strength, then you actually double than bonus and subtract it from another number to get to the final value... that's a lot to remember or look up.You have to admit that they tend to be though, or once they introduce these additional things they can become more complex. *blinks* Sorry I thought we were talking about simple systems.What do you consider a complex game because to me D&D Rules Cyclopaedia isn't what I would call a simple game. Even though it has limited options, it has a number of different systems at work in it. It's been a while since I've looked at my copy, but I think there are occasions were rolling high is good and others where rolling low. You have tables for character progression, different systems for how each class works, etc. etc.Really? You think balancing something like Hero or GURPS character generator is easier to write than something like FATE or Cortex? Could not agree less, simple systems often leave much to GM Fiat, or expecting group co-operation. They don't fix with Band-Aids in the book they tend to leave the players and GM to fix things to suit their home game.</blockquote>

Verification