Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6284107" data-attributes="member: 27160">I view this as another route to the same destination - and it's possible, sure. What you are doing is generating &quot;house rules&quot; about how stuff works in your shared world. Whether you write them down or just remember them, you end up with a set of rules about how stuff works in &quot;your game&quot;.This is fine, but I find it has two problems:1) The rules you end up with can be a lot less clean and coordinated. Actually, maybe this is why folks keen to play this way like AD&amp;D/OD&amp;D? Since it is rather messy and uncoordinated to begin with, it feels fine to just add more on the top...2) You tend to end up with the same rules every time for the same group. One of the great things about RPGs is that you can play in a world quite different to our own. By having the (more all-encompassing) rules written out beforehand, you give both GM and players something solid that defines that world. If it's left to the GM every time, they will have some assumptions that just never get changed or removed.Add to this that starting with the rules already written to include all or most circumstances gets us going much faster than a &quot;develop in play&quot; approach to the rules does, I'm sold (these days) on having &quot;rules to cover all PC-gameworld interactions&quot; from the beginning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6284107, member: 27160"] I view this as another route to the same destination - and it's possible, sure. What you are doing is generating "house rules" about how stuff works in your shared world. Whether you write them down or just remember them, you end up with a set of rules about how stuff works in "your game". This is fine, but I find it has two problems: 1) The rules you end up with can be a lot less clean and coordinated. Actually, maybe this is why folks keen to play this way like AD&D/OD&D? Since it is rather messy and uncoordinated to begin with, it feels fine to just add more on the top... 2) You tend to end up with the same rules every time for the same group. One of the great things about RPGs is that you can play in a world quite different to our own. By having the (more all-encompassing) rules written out beforehand, you give both GM and players something solid that defines that world. If it's left to the GM every time, they will have some assumptions that just never get changed or removed. Add to this that starting with the rules already written to include all or most circumstances gets us going much faster than a "develop in play" approach to the rules does, I'm sold (these days) on having "rules to cover all PC-gameworld interactions" from the beginning. [/QUOTE]

Verification