Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4045461" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, the question isn't whether or not the grappling rules are complex.&nbsp; They are indeed complex, and no one denies it.The question is are they too complex for what they do?My answer to that is, &quot;No.&quot;&nbsp; Yes, the grappling rules could be simpler.&nbsp; But, simpler rules would involve more abstraction, and most of the special case questions which make grappling actually complicated would not in fact go away.&nbsp; Or, if you could make them go away, the result would be something that didn't have alot of the features one would expect grappling to have.I've seen several 'simplified' versions of the grappling rules.&nbsp; Not surprisingly none of them manage to capture the essence of grappling and do so with fewer rules.&nbsp; I mean, if simple was all you cared about you could just write - '+8 melee grapple (1d6)' - and reduce grappling entirely to flavor.&nbsp; No doubt some people would prefer that sort of streamlining.&nbsp; However, you can't claim that system is 'equivalent to the current system and also simpler' which is what I think most people want.&nbsp; Then when you really get to questioning them you find out that they aren't just upset at how complicated the rules are, but also the fact that they are so limiting.They want rules that provide more detail and more options AND are also simplier and easier to remember.I personally think that the existing rules are pretty good at what they do.&nbsp; They need some clarifying.&nbsp; They could be written in a manner that's easier to understand.&nbsp; They could use some minor tweaking.&nbsp; They probably need to handle some intuitive things that they don't.&nbsp; But the overall approach is generally correct.I think the real solution is to offer a very streamlined set of rules for people that don't carry about simulation, and then some optional 'advanced rules' in a special section for people that want a stronger link between the mechanics and the fluff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4045461, member: 4937"] No, the question isn't whether or not the grappling rules are complex. They are indeed complex, and no one denies it. The question is [i]are they too complex for what they do[/i]? My answer to that is, "No." Yes, the grappling rules could be simpler. But, simpler rules would involve more abstraction, and most of the special case questions which make grappling actually complicated would not in fact go away. Or, if you could make them go away, the result would be something that didn't have alot of the features one would expect grappling to have. I've seen several 'simplified' versions of the grappling rules. Not surprisingly none of them manage to capture the essence of grappling and do so with fewer rules. I mean, if simple was all you cared about you could just write - '+8 melee grapple (1d6)' - and reduce grappling entirely to flavor. No doubt some people would prefer that sort of streamlining. However, you can't claim that system is 'equivalent to the current system and also simpler' which is what I think most people want. Then when you really get to questioning them you find out that they aren't just upset at how complicated the rules are, but also the fact that they are so limiting. They want rules that provide more detail and more options AND are also simplier and easier to remember. I personally think that the existing rules are pretty good at what they do. They need some clarifying. They could be written in a manner that's easier to understand. They could use some minor tweaking. They probably need to handle some intuitive things that they don't. But the overall approach is generally correct. I think the real solution is to offer a very streamlined set of rules for people that don't carry about simulation, and then some optional 'advanced rules' in a special section for people that want a stronger link between the mechanics and the fluff. [/QUOTE]

Verification