Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 6066452" data-attributes="member: 6683307">I can neither strictly agree nor disagree with this sentiment. While it should be a game design objective to make the game as simple as possible, it must also be as simple as possible while retaining the design goals you have for it. And therein lies the problem with designing a new iteration of D&D specifically. So many people have such differing opinions about what makes it D&D, that you either try to please everyone and create a clunky beast that alienates new players, or you design an elegant game and turn people off to it for being unfamiliar. Frankly, it wouldn't be difficult at all to design a game based on flipping a coin instead of dice rolls. I just got a vague idea for one just now, in fact. The problem is that it may be just too simple, not allowing for enough variation or randomness. Maybe. It really depends on how it's implimented and how varied the non-random rules are. This only supports the idea of having a very basic core set of rules, with other books utilizing them in different ways, I think. For D&D, anyhow. Other games have their specific niche and are thus easier to design to fill it.Understandable.I don't really like that idea. Including the options in the same book as the very core mechanics insinuates that those options are higher-order, or more important than any of the other options that come out later and in different books.</blockquote>