Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 481419" data-attributes="member: 3396">3E is supposed to be a &quot;system&quot;.&nbsp; The more that players are forced to make arbitrary or inconsistent decisions to 'fix it', the less and less useful a &quot;system&quot; it is.&nbsp; And this, I think is where you find me incomprehensible (or reprehensible; I can't tell which).&nbsp; I am using a very narrow definition for &quot;system&quot;, that I think is the mis-step.Just because it ceases to be a tight &quot;system&quot; (i.e. no flaws, completely internally consistent, etc.) does not imply that it is less useful as a game.&nbsp; All systems are games, but not all games are &quot;systems&quot;.&nbsp; But disassociated gamers have less and less of a common base to use as a platform for discussions.If there is a gray area, and there are 15 'common' rule-0 variations for it, and innumerable less common variations, what can we use as a basis for discussion, or common play (at cons or whatever)?&nbsp; This is where 2E went.&nbsp; There is less a chance of 3E doing the same, since the SRD has locked for all time a basic version of the game, with strengths and flaws.&nbsp; But still, these common problems cannot be ignored.&nbsp; And if we manufacture new problems by ignoring the rules, or not ignoring rulings that specifically contradict the rules, then we are not being true to ourselves, the game or the gaming community.So, wounding specifies 3 ways to fix it, two of which are redundant.&nbsp; Fast Healing and Regeneration explicitly do not fall within the remaining two.&nbsp; Therefore FH and Regen do not 'cure' wounding.&nbsp; The base version of the core rules, as presented in the core rulebooks and SRD, along with associated official errata,&nbsp; and official clarifications that do not blatantly contradict the core rules, says so.&nbsp; Any DM is free to rule-0 that for their campaign, but it will be known as a rule-0.&nbsp; I do not contest the right of DMs to rule-0 to fit their games.-Fletch!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mkletch, post: 481419, member: 3396"] 3E is supposed to be a "system". The more that players are forced to make arbitrary or inconsistent decisions to 'fix it', the less and less useful a "system" it is. And this, I think is where you find me incomprehensible (or reprehensible; I can't tell which). I am using a very narrow definition for "system", that I think is the mis-step. Just because it ceases to be a tight "system" (i.e. no flaws, completely internally consistent, etc.) does not imply that it is less useful as a game. All systems are games, but not all games are "systems". But disassociated gamers have less and less of a common base to use as a platform for discussions. If there is a gray area, and there are 15 'common' rule-0 variations for it, and innumerable less common variations, what can we use as a basis for discussion, or common play (at cons or whatever)? This is where 2E went. There is less a chance of 3E doing the same, since the SRD has locked for all time a basic version of the game, with strengths and flaws. But still, these common problems cannot be ignored. And if we manufacture new problems by ignoring the rules, or not ignoring rulings that specifically contradict the rules, then we are not being true to ourselves, the game or the gaming community. So, wounding specifies 3 ways to fix it, two of which are redundant. Fast Healing and Regeneration explicitly do not fall within the remaining two. Therefore FH and Regen do not 'cure' wounding. The base version of the core rules, as presented in the core rulebooks and SRD, along with associated official errata, and official clarifications that do not blatantly contradict the core rules, says so. Any DM is free to rule-0 that for their campaign, but it will be known as a rule-0. I do not contest the right of DMs to rule-0 to fit their games. -Fletch! [/QUOTE]

Verification