|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 9:30PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2006
|
Legends and Lore
Rules, Rules, Rules
by Monte Cook A game designer can affect the play of the game by how a rule is presented, and what is said or not said within the framework of that rule. Talk about this column here. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 9:42PM
#2
|
|
|
Now I want a character that can climb a cyclone!
Also more poll options for those who wanted them - who says that Monte does not learn from experience?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 9:43PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2004
|
People informing other players of what the rules of the game they're playing are make the game better, not worse.
On the CO IRC, generally as TorpedoFish. Vain? Me? NEVER.
Show
You're the straightest shooter I know on these boards. You don't mince words about your opinions, and I respect that about you. The whole fiasco you described in the last State of the CO Forum was particularly enlightening (and kind of disappointing with regards to how they see us).
Ah, Tsuyo. When your post isn't one sentence long full of asterisks, you have much wisdom to share with us  .
From the IRC: (19:52) RuinsFate: You know, I was gonna agree with something PalOn said... but I think I'm just gonna through my lot in with tsuyo's sudden train-wreck grade interjection.
(01:45) Nausicaa: yes your rage is a righteous rage :D
(01:45) Nausicaa: righteous rage of torpedo
My sci-fi writing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 9:57PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
^not really, no. you can tell yourself that though if it will make you feel better about how you act at your table.
i'd want something like 1 (assumption that the PC can climb) but then maybe a mechanic for like, dramatic situations to resolve getting shot off a ladder or something.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:00PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2006
|
one of the biggest benefits of a new edition of a game is that all of the best ideas of the game, and the best approaches to the game, can be gathered together and codified in the new edition, for the benefit of all players of the game.
i fell in love with d&d back in 1st edition, but mr. cook's option 1 dug up memories of how the rules back then seemed to raise more questions than they answered.
i much prefer option 3, both as a dm and as a player.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:16PM
#6
|
|
|
Where as I chose the 'radically different' option as I prefer a level based DC and the simplicity of the 4th Ed rules (stat +trained/untrained + 1/2 level + situational/miscellaneous modifiers).
I also note that the results of last week's poll are apparently being kept in house.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:22PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2005
|
As a DM I think I would like option 2.5 - the entierty of Option 2 with the Surface chart added in.
As a player, I think I like option 2 for its simplicity but option 3 for its Surface table and rules for slipping/falling.
As a forum goer, I think Option 2 would be fine for 99% of all groups but that highly vocal 1% would abuse the rule and thus force the need for the lamentably long winded Option 3.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:23PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Could somebody please tell me what the purpose of this article is? I don't get it.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:27PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2005
|
Could somebody please tell me what the purpose of this article is? I don't get it.
The purpose is to showcase the many different ways in which rules can be written. You can have a very simple, yet horribly vague, rule (option 1), a rule that's still vague but less so (option 2) or a rule that has a sub-rule for every fringe interaction with the rule (option 3). The article is showing us how rules have evolved over the years from basically single line text to very complex paragraphs.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2011 - 10:29PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
one of the biggest benefits of a new edition of a game is that all of the best ideas of the game, and the best approaches to the game, can be gathered together and codified in the new edition, for the benefit of all players of the game.
i fell in love with d&d back in 1st edition, but mr. cook's option 1 dug up memories of how the rules back then seemed to raise more questions than they answered.
i much prefer option 3, both as a dm and as a player.
option 1 has the nice base assumption that adventurers are any good at climbing. maybe a "how to climb crazy crap" rule would be good, though? actually that vague, though, so it's really up to the DM on when to apply the mechanic and when to let it slide. rolling a 1 on something simple is always lame and rolling a 20 feels like wasted luck.
option 3 in this specific example can lead to the whole 3rd edition skillmancy problems (combination rules lawyer BS and ridiculous game breaking crap) but you don't really get anything back from it unless you're using 4e-style scaling DCs for most things.
|
|
|
