Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6240135" data-attributes="member: 5143">Because there simply is not enough time and resources to do both.&nbsp; Imagine a game where you still needed 3 350 page books to flesh out all the rules like you do in most of the editions so far, but you get the focus that the editions have had so far:&nbsp; Combat oriented.So, now you want to add in a large focus on non-combat mechanics.&nbsp; That likely requires that the description of each class doubles to include all of the non-combat options you are adding to the game.&nbsp; It also requires sections just as big for all the non-combat rules as you have for combat rules as well as having a lot more information on the non-combat uses of monsters.&nbsp; This doubles the length of all 3 books, so you now have 3 700 page books.&nbsp; This requires double the number of people to write the book or twice as long.&nbsp; With more people, there is more overhead like more meetings to make sure everyone is on the same page.&nbsp; It also requires way more testing time.&nbsp; Not just double the testing time, exponentially more testing time because you want to make sure the non-combat and combat options are balanced with each other in any combination.This raises the price of all the books and makes them more daunting for new players.&nbsp; The testing becomes so complex and unwieldy that it gets half-assed.&nbsp; There are so many rules that most group write off half of them as stupid and don't use them anyways.So, the logical thing to do is pair down the rules back to only the ones that are used most often.&nbsp; Which are the combat rules, therefore putting us back precisely where we started.I'm not sure how that helps the game become more non-combat focused.&nbsp; We have backgrounds in 5e with a more non-combat focus.I still maintain that there's no way for rules to make the game more non-combat focused without becoming extremely narrative in nature.&nbsp; Having extremely narrative rules for non-combat doesn't help when your combat rules are the opposite.The thing is that the rules already let you do this and work fairly well for that sort of thing.&nbsp; I dread what would happen if they became MORE non-combat focused.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6240135, member: 5143"] Because there simply is not enough time and resources to do both. Imagine a game where you still needed 3 350 page books to flesh out all the rules like you do in most of the editions so far, but you get the focus that the editions have had so far: Combat oriented. So, now you want to add in a large focus on non-combat mechanics. That likely requires that the description of each class doubles to include all of the non-combat options you are adding to the game. It also requires sections just as big for all the non-combat rules as you have for combat rules as well as having a lot more information on the non-combat uses of monsters. This doubles the length of all 3 books, so you now have 3 700 page books. This requires double the number of people to write the book or twice as long. With more people, there is more overhead like more meetings to make sure everyone is on the same page. It also requires way more testing time. Not just double the testing time, exponentially more testing time because you want to make sure the non-combat and combat options are balanced with each other in any combination. This raises the price of all the books and makes them more daunting for new players. The testing becomes so complex and unwieldy that it gets half-assed. There are so many rules that most group write off half of them as stupid and don't use them anyways. So, the logical thing to do is pair down the rules back to only the ones that are used most often. Which are the combat rules, therefore putting us back precisely where we started. I'm not sure how that helps the game become more non-combat focused. We have backgrounds in 5e with a more non-combat focus. I still maintain that there's no way for rules to make the game more non-combat focused without becoming extremely narrative in nature. Having extremely narrative rules for non-combat doesn't help when your combat rules are the opposite. The thing is that the rules already let you do this and work fairly well for that sort of thing. I dread what would happen if they became MORE non-combat focused. [/QUOTE]

Verification