Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5349228" data-attributes="member: 22779">On the idea of integrated rules:Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM?&nbsp; Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose?&nbsp; How?&nbsp; How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't?Doesn't modularity result in lots and lots of failed sessions, if not failed games, as DM's fumble their way through reinventing the wheel time and time again, table to table?Why not start from the presumption that DM =/= amateur game designer and build a ruleset that works most of the time?&nbsp; Sure, it might not be a great system for bending towards other things, but, is that what you want from a system?&nbsp; Why not presume that people who play Game X are going to play in a certain style and then provide Game Y for those who might want something different?This is precisely what 3e D&amp;D did.&nbsp; You have a very integrated system in 3e (note the plethora of threads decrying various people's inability to adapt the system to whatever variants they want), with a bajillion side games, mostly from 3pp based on whatever new avenue people want to explore.I honestly think that the era of the &quot;tinker's game&quot; is over.&nbsp; I know that people don't want to think that, but, IMO, what we're going to see is more and more integrated systems.&nbsp; The tighter the system is tied to a specific genre or theme, the more integrated the system will be.Savage Worlds is a generic system, so, while it's fairly integrated, it's not very tightly wound.&nbsp; Not until you add in a campaign book, and then the system becomes very tightly integrated - trying to pull out elements of the specific campaign books is not an easy task.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5349228, member: 22779"] On the idea of integrated rules: Is modularity something you want to give to a new DM? Is it fair to presume that a new DM will be able to pick and choose? How? How can someone who is new to RPG's have the criteria for knowing what will work at the table and what won't? Doesn't modularity result in lots and lots of failed sessions, if not failed games, as DM's fumble their way through reinventing the wheel time and time again, table to table? Why not start from the presumption that DM =/= amateur game designer and build a ruleset that works most of the time? Sure, it might not be a great system for bending towards other things, but, is that what you want from a system? Why not presume that people who play Game X are going to play in a certain style and then provide Game Y for those who might want something different? This is precisely what 3e D&D did. You have a very integrated system in 3e (note the plethora of threads decrying various people's inability to adapt the system to whatever variants they want), with a bajillion side games, mostly from 3pp based on whatever new avenue people want to explore. I honestly think that the era of the "tinker's game" is over. I know that people don't want to think that, but, IMO, what we're going to see is more and more integrated systems. The tighter the system is tied to a specific genre or theme, the more integrated the system will be. Savage Worlds is a generic system, so, while it's fairly integrated, it's not very tightly wound. Not until you add in a campaign book, and then the system becomes very tightly integrated - trying to pull out elements of the specific campaign books is not an easy task. [/QUOTE]

Verification