|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:28PM
#1
|
|
|
Seems to me, before any of these "rule" debates about D&DNext can be addressed, we need clarification on two fronts: what is a rule and why is it needed?
The first seems to be easy.
The second seems to be the point of contention.
If I am right in my assumption, why?
I think when that question is answered, the real point of debate may actually be revealed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:18AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
There are people looking at rules as a kind of "laws of nature", defining the world they are living in. There are people looking at rules as a mean towards conflict resolution. The first one are normally called simulationists, and have certain needs. The second ones are generally called narrativists, and have different needs.
...I think that pretty much covers most of it, at least from what I have seen on these boards.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 1:17AM
#3
|
|
|
There's more than one kind of rule, and the different kinds of rules are needed for different things.
In roleplaying games, there's generally at least two broad categories of rules. One set of rules for generating dynamic scenarios and populating them, and another set of rules for determining the outcome of decisions made within those scenarios.
The general things the first set of rules are often supposed to accomplish: Creating an interesting world, and interesting characters, and interesting places and things for those characters to interact with, and making it all seem alive and consistent without requiring too much work on the part of the DM.
The general things the second set of rules might be supposed to accomplish: Allow the decisions of the players to meaningfully affect outcomes, without being so complicated as to bog things down, or being so arbitrary as to render decisions meaningless.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 1:20AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
If it isn't math, it's fluff.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 1:58AM
#5
|
|
|
I could easily make an entirely rules-based RPG without using math. I don't think it'd be that fun for me - because I like dice. But math's not necessary to have rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 2:53AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Rules are the methods of scenario creation, conflict resoltion, consistency maintanence that the players of a game agree on.
We buy rulebooks so we dont have to spend the years creating and figuring out our own rules.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 12:48PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2011
|
Game-world and real-world rules seem to answer commonly occurring questions. In a game's environment, those questions might be:
How far can I walk, jog, or run in a short span of time? How does weight affect my movement?
How much damage does a steel weapon cause to a creature? How does armor and/or agility affect, impede, or deflect this damage?
How does a spellcaster create, channel, manipulate, and discharge magical energies? How can potential targets overcome such energies?
When I verbally interact with a sentient being, how do I guage my success? How can the sentient being disregard my attempts toward diplomatic, devious, threatening, or callous remarks?
And the questions would go on. For each question that arises, an answer is found, and those answers would become the rules by which the game is played.
As we approach 5E, we are seeing that multiple answers exist for singular questions, so the questions (thus, the rules) must be asked with a caveat: how does situation X affect item/creature/situation Y in this particular game's environment? The standard rules would emerge from such questions, and modular rules would arise from other ways of answering similar questions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 1:08PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
There are people looking at rules as a kind of "laws of nature", defining the world they are living in. There are people looking at rules as a mean towards conflict resolution. The first one are normally called simulationists, and have certain needs. The second ones are generally called narrativists, and have different needs.
...I think that pretty much covers most of it, at least from what I have seen on these boards.
I don't think there's any reason that a solution can't be found that makes both the simulationist and the narrativists happy at the same time. Thats what we need to work towards.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 3:47PM
#9
|
|
|
Reading the GNS stuff on the Wikkypeeja, I find it difficult to imagine a more... silly way of trying to divide up roleplayers.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 28, 2012 - 5:41PM
#10
|
|
|
There are people looking at rules as a kind of "laws of nature", defining the world they are living in. There are people looking at rules as a mean towards conflict resolution. The first one are normally called simulationists, and have certain needs. The second ones are generally called narrativists, and have different needs.
...I think that pretty much covers most of it, at least from what I have seen on these boards.
I don't think there's any reason that a solution can't be found that makes both the simulationist and the narrativists happy at the same time. Thats what we need to work towards.
While I agree, it seems that some rules that players deem superfluous, others deem a necessity. This creates a conflict. You often hear, just don't use it. But for a game that utilizes a lot of rules, players view those rules as standardized. This seems to put the camps at odds at times.
|
|
|
