Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4730081" data-attributes="member: 40961">Not really.&nbsp; My comment was really addressed to the inclusion of rules that the designers feel they *have* to have for whatever reason, when those rules don't actually improve the game.&nbsp; A children's game like Faery Tale doesn't need a detailed combat simulator.&nbsp; A fight-porn game like Feng Shui doesn't need simulation level rules for character wealth.&nbsp; &nbsp;Each of these games could be turned into a game that uses the extra portion that I don't think is necessary, but doing so would require altering the vision of the game.&nbsp; And unless that alteration is carried through 100%, you end up with lousy game design.I can give an example: the 3e craft and profession systems.&nbsp; They're like the first step into a game that provides usable rules for economic activities.&nbsp; But they absolutely fail in that regard.&nbsp; They promise that you can use them for any craft or skill you can imagine, but in reality all they provide is a shell.&nbsp; The rules for craft boil down to &quot;the DM sets a DC, and you roll for it.&quot;&nbsp; The rules for profession boil down to &quot;roll, divide by two, earn that much gold.&quot;&nbsp; Meanwhile, investing in these skills trades off with your adventuring skills, creating an unnecessarily conflict.&nbsp; The result is a system that seems tacked on, as if the designers were worried that either players *needed* some official representation of their economic abilities (ie, that player/DM judgment wasn't psychologically acceptable to the player base), or that the designers felt that they *had* to include a nod to economic activities in the official rules, even if the rules were really a hollow shell.&nbsp; So there's two problems- first, the tradeoff effect distracts from 3e's strengths.&nbsp; Second, player/DM judgment would probably accomplish the strengths of the 3e craft and profession system as well or better than the actual system, since the actual system for craft really is just DM judgment, and the profession system doesn't even differentiate between types of professions in terms of income earned per week.&nbsp;Now, good craft and skill rules could be written and included in 3e (or 4e).&nbsp; But if you're going to include those, I think its really important to do it full strength.&nbsp; Make the rules contribute something a DM couldn't contribute by an ad hoc rule.&nbsp; Make the game include economic issues in regular gameplay.&nbsp; Make the craft and profession rules either not trade off with adventuring skills, or, include economic issues often enough that the tradeoff is acceptable to the typical player.&nbsp;Its ok not to make the effort.&nbsp; Its ok to go all-in.&nbsp; Just don't go halfway with these things.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4730081, member: 40961"] Not really. My comment was really addressed to the inclusion of rules that the designers feel they *have* to have for whatever reason, when those rules don't actually improve the game. A children's game like Faery Tale doesn't need a detailed combat simulator. A fight-porn game like Feng Shui doesn't need simulation level rules for character wealth. Each of these games could be turned into a game that uses the extra portion that I don't think is necessary, but doing so would require altering the vision of the game. And unless that alteration is carried through 100%, you end up with lousy game design. I can give an example: the 3e craft and profession systems. They're like the first step into a game that provides usable rules for economic activities. But they absolutely fail in that regard. They promise that you can use them for any craft or skill you can imagine, but in reality all they provide is a shell. The rules for craft boil down to "the DM sets a DC, and you roll for it." The rules for profession boil down to "roll, divide by two, earn that much gold." Meanwhile, investing in these skills trades off with your adventuring skills, creating an unnecessarily conflict. The result is a system that seems tacked on, as if the designers were worried that either players *needed* some official representation of their economic abilities (ie, that player/DM judgment wasn't psychologically acceptable to the player base), or that the designers felt that they *had* to include a nod to economic activities in the official rules, even if the rules were really a hollow shell. So there's two problems- first, the tradeoff effect distracts from 3e's strengths. Second, player/DM judgment would probably accomplish the strengths of the 3e craft and profession system as well or better than the actual system, since the actual system for craft really is just DM judgment, and the profession system doesn't even differentiate between types of professions in terms of income earned per week. Now, good craft and skill rules could be written and included in 3e (or 4e). But if you're going to include those, I think its really important to do it full strength. Make the rules contribute something a DM couldn't contribute by an ad hoc rule. Make the game include economic issues in regular gameplay. Make the craft and profession rules either not trade off with adventuring skills, or, include economic issues often enough that the tradeoff is acceptable to the typical player. Its ok not to make the effort. Its ok to go all-in. Just don't go halfway with these things. [/QUOTE]

Verification