Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFG_Sam Stewart

Beta Update 5

Recommended Posts

I know, I do all the time. We commies are good at that, the best in the world in fact. :ph34r:

 

Commies are certainly good at some things, all right.  Deadly efficient, in fact.  Best in the world, indeed.  I'd write more but the KGB-inspired NSA might be reading this now.

 

I still disagree with it, mouthymerc, and I have yet to read any convincing argument to change the mind on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply disagree that more diversity and options in the rules create more opportunities? Saywhuh?

 

Oh no!  It is not written in the book so I can't do it!  Aigh!  Gods of diversity and options save me!!

 

Really, Jeger?  From all that has been written thus far you remain steadfast in this opinion of me?  Tolerance is not enough, I suppose.  I.Must.Approve.

 

Well, I don't.  At least not in the manner in which you must have it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D Well. Let's leave tolerance out of this ;) and focus on the subject matter. Your argument is easily reversed: "Oh no! It is written in the book so I can't not do it! Aigh! .... " :ph34r: and alone it makes for a poor argument, whether for or against.

 

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I don't need you to approve (tolerance is sufficient, compliance isn't needed ;) ), and I doubt that FFG is going to take my suggestion and include it. I can only hope. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

Just going by the popularity of D & D, and the rapid rise of Pathfinder, I would have to disagree. Me thinks the majority likes their rules heavy, and crunchy.

The minority of us (probably the majority in this electronic cloud of social activity) do prefer lighter, more palatable rule sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

Just going by the popularity of D & D, and the rapid rise of Pathfinder, I would have to disagree. Me thinks the majority likes their rules heavy, and crunchy.

The minority of us (probably the majority in this electronic cloud of social activity) do prefer lighter, more palatable rule sets.

 

 

 

Actually, the rise and popularity of 5th edition D&D speaks otherwise, amigo.  It serves as sort of a backlash against the rules heaviness of 3rd, 4th and Pathfinder.

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

Just going by the popularity of D & D, and the rapid rise of Pathfinder, I would have to disagree. Me thinks the majority likes their rules heavy, and crunchy.

The minority of us (probably the majority in this electronic cloud of social activity) do prefer lighter, more palatable rule sets.

 

 

Actually, the rise of 5th edition D&D speaks otherwise, amigo.

Meant 3.x señor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance of side bars and options, it's not always about rules heavy or rules light, but sometimes alternative resolution.

 

One of my favorite things from IIRC the edge GM screen/kit, was the alternative rule for player initiative and slots order.  It could easily have been a side bar in the core book, but I think that FFG likes providing content like this in the screen.

 

The reason I bring this up is because, it's not a rules heavy or rules light kind of option.  it's an alternative resolution, allowing for initiative to basically be preformed prior to combat, reducing the time it takes for each player to roll checks and determine the slot placement.

 

It was also an option that I would have not thought of.  this isn't about "can I do this in my game or can't I" but rather a different way to use the same game metrics to accomplish the same goal in a way the designers have vetted to an extent and have said, this works, if you like it.

 

So I am on the band wagon that more options are good, especially for morality, and alternative resolutions, and other misc.  Not because I think it's needed, but because it can inspire people, and it really detracts nothing from the people who don't like it if it's made "optional."

 

of course, YMMV. (see also the narrative combat resolution option).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of what the driving ursidae said...

 

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

 

This isn't about rules heavy or rules light, if comparing to earlier incarnations of DnD or Rolemaster or whatever, claiming that one more option during a character creation step, a step that has very few options to start with and the consequences of adding another option or changing one of the existing ones to another one, is rules heavy is a rather wild, long shot in the dark... this doesn't bog down play, it doesn't add a significant amount of time to character creation, but it does add a significant impact on the character and the game, without breaking it.

 

Although I do see your point. Too many options does making a decision harder, we call it "Valgets kval" in Norwegian, which ... uh, roughly translates into "the suffering of choice" or somesuch thing, I have no idea if you have a similar one (it's kind of like being torn between two things, but it sounds more violent ;) ). I get it though, but I do not think that this specific subject: Morality 29/71 instead of (or in addition to) 30/70 will cause that problem. Perhaps for some, but I'd speculate that it would be a rather small minority and they'd soon learn :ph34r:;)

Edited by Jegergryte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of what the driving ursidae said...

 

Having it in the rules caters to a wider group of people and players (not mutually exclusive categories no) than not. It provides more roleplaying opportunities for a wider audience of players.

 

I respectfully disagree.  I would argue that a more rules light game tends to attract a wider group of people and players with diverse backgrounds and perspectives allowing them to put into the game more of what they desire rather than be hog-tied to any particular rule which may be contrary to what they might desire thus restricting player agency.

 

This isn't about rules heavy or rules light, if comparing to earlier incarnations of DnD or Rolemaster or whatever, claiming that one more option during a character creation step, a step that has very few options to start with and the consequences of adding another option or changing one of the existing ones to another one, is rules heavy is a rather wild, long shot in the dark... this doesn't bog down play, it doesn't add a significant amount of time to character creation, but it does add a significant impact on the character and the game, without breaking it.

 

Although I do see your point. Too many options does making a decision harder, we call it "Valgets kval" in Norwegian, which ... uh, roughly translates into "strangulated by choice" or somesuch thing, I have no idea if you have a similar one (it's kind of like being torn between two things, but it sounds more violent ;) ). I get it though, but I do not think that this specific subject: Morality 29/71 instead of (or in addition to) 30/70 will cause that problem. Perhaps for some, but I'd speculate that it would be a rather small minority and they'd soon learn :ph34r:;)

 

 

I believe that I have heard it referenced as 'analysis paralysis'.  I would agree with you, however, in that this condition would hardly exist in this case.  I'd be more inclined to call it 'scope creep', 'incrementalism' or somesuch.

Edited by angelicdoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D5e may be lighter than 3.5/Pathfinder, but it's certain not what I would call rules light.

Agreed.

 

Fudge is "rules-light."  Fate Accelerated Edition would also qualify as a "rules light" RPG.

 

D&D in any edition (even Basic/Red Box) has never exactly been what I'd call "rules light," with the crunch factor probably being at it's height during 3.5, and with Pathfinder being a glorified re-tread of 3.5 it has many of the same issues, solving a few while creating new ones.  4e still had a lot of crunch, but the bulk of it was on the player side.  So far, 5e is generally doing better, but it remains to be seen if that will last once WotC gets around to releasing the inevitable splatbooks to offer more character options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...