Sepsis
05-18-1998, 11:37 PM
At 10:43 AM 5/18/98 EDT, DKEvermore(DKEvermore@aol.com)wrote:
>
>****** RANT WARNING *******
>I see an awful lot of new "rules" come out of this list. Most of these are,
>in my opinion, useless. For instance, the silly monuments thing; we've
>already got the Build action, this kind of thing should be handled on a case
>by case basis in conjuction with the action. And Modify Unit! Really! Just
>design a cool new war card and let the DM trade it to the player when the DM
>feels the player has covered the cost enough and the DM is sure the card will
>not severely upset the play balance. Heaven knows we have enough examples to
>follow.
>
>Adding rules for this and that is a lot of fun for th DMs, but from the
player
>point of view, this game already has SCORES of new stuff to absorb, besides
>learning the AD&D part!
>
>Finally, adding more and more rules inevitably provides more loop holes than
>swiss cheese for the rules lawyers to take advantage of. (sorry for the
rotten
>sentence)
>
>So here's my more constructive suggestion. Why not stop adding endlessly to
>the rules with all these "options". I would like to see people use the same
>rules to solve new questions. I also enjoy seeing new interpretations.
>
OK you must have known I would respond to this. Although I'm sure you
didn't mean it, I take this rant personally. As "the silly monuments thing"
happens to be my creation. I find I must point this out, the rule additions
and modifivations that you find on the Netbook are not just concepts. These
are actual *solutions* to problems that people have encountered in their
campaigns. Plainly put, the rules just don't cover 'em. For instance I did
attempt to *only* use the Build action for Monuments at first, but given
the very specific nature of them and their bonuses I found it was better to
create a guideline that covered the cost and time to build one. In case you
didn't notice it does take a Build Action to create a Monument, the rule
modification only covers the fact you are building a Monument instead of
just a standard structure.
Also there is not an "endless" outpouring of additions. The Netbook has
existed for about a year and while at first it grew quickly (as many folks
had come across problems while playing, and wanted to share their
solutions) it has now slowed to a crawl and in fact we see virtually no new
rules, as much as new spells and monsters. And frankly I like to see some
of the ideas other Players and DMs come up with those areas. Still when we
see rules on the Netbook you most often see that it is actually
clarification on using another Action or rule in a very specific way. Take
the Spy Network "rule" it too is not an Action in and of it self, but is a
guide on how to use the Espionage Action to establish one. Simply you are
getting what you want, suggestions on how to use existing rules in a new
way. As for there being to much to learn, well first I don't think anyone
should play BR who is still in the "learning AD&D phase" this is an
advanced setting so only the experienced should apply. Secondly, these
"rules" are not mandatory the DM will decide what, if any, are applicable.
But most would only be considered if a particular situation arises. Take
the Joust "rule", that may never come into play, but if a PC wants to hold
a jousting contest you might find it handy.
My last point would be the loop-hole argument. As DM I have last say in my
game. Quote rules all you want but what I say goes. Particularly when it
comes to things that are "unofficial", no Player is going to weasel his way
through something because of a rule's wording. Also I don't game with rule
lawyers, the suck the fun out of everything so I avoid them. I like
role-playing not rule-playing. But thats another subject all together.
In conclusion if you don't like what you see on the Netbook, don't use it.
But please don't attempt to supress others creative flow. I like to see
standing rules applied in new ways myself, but sometimes you have to take
it a step further. After all a setting this complex has more possible
situations then solutions...
Sepsis, rtifft@usa.net
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-
BR Netbook - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6396/birth.html
>
>****** RANT WARNING *******
>I see an awful lot of new "rules" come out of this list. Most of these are,
>in my opinion, useless. For instance, the silly monuments thing; we've
>already got the Build action, this kind of thing should be handled on a case
>by case basis in conjuction with the action. And Modify Unit! Really! Just
>design a cool new war card and let the DM trade it to the player when the DM
>feels the player has covered the cost enough and the DM is sure the card will
>not severely upset the play balance. Heaven knows we have enough examples to
>follow.
>
>Adding rules for this and that is a lot of fun for th DMs, but from the
player
>point of view, this game already has SCORES of new stuff to absorb, besides
>learning the AD&D part!
>
>Finally, adding more and more rules inevitably provides more loop holes than
>swiss cheese for the rules lawyers to take advantage of. (sorry for the
rotten
>sentence)
>
>So here's my more constructive suggestion. Why not stop adding endlessly to
>the rules with all these "options". I would like to see people use the same
>rules to solve new questions. I also enjoy seeing new interpretations.
>
OK you must have known I would respond to this. Although I'm sure you
didn't mean it, I take this rant personally. As "the silly monuments thing"
happens to be my creation. I find I must point this out, the rule additions
and modifivations that you find on the Netbook are not just concepts. These
are actual *solutions* to problems that people have encountered in their
campaigns. Plainly put, the rules just don't cover 'em. For instance I did
attempt to *only* use the Build action for Monuments at first, but given
the very specific nature of them and their bonuses I found it was better to
create a guideline that covered the cost and time to build one. In case you
didn't notice it does take a Build Action to create a Monument, the rule
modification only covers the fact you are building a Monument instead of
just a standard structure.
Also there is not an "endless" outpouring of additions. The Netbook has
existed for about a year and while at first it grew quickly (as many folks
had come across problems while playing, and wanted to share their
solutions) it has now slowed to a crawl and in fact we see virtually no new
rules, as much as new spells and monsters. And frankly I like to see some
of the ideas other Players and DMs come up with those areas. Still when we
see rules on the Netbook you most often see that it is actually
clarification on using another Action or rule in a very specific way. Take
the Spy Network "rule" it too is not an Action in and of it self, but is a
guide on how to use the Espionage Action to establish one. Simply you are
getting what you want, suggestions on how to use existing rules in a new
way. As for there being to much to learn, well first I don't think anyone
should play BR who is still in the "learning AD&D phase" this is an
advanced setting so only the experienced should apply. Secondly, these
"rules" are not mandatory the DM will decide what, if any, are applicable.
But most would only be considered if a particular situation arises. Take
the Joust "rule", that may never come into play, but if a PC wants to hold
a jousting contest you might find it handy.
My last point would be the loop-hole argument. As DM I have last say in my
game. Quote rules all you want but what I say goes. Particularly when it
comes to things that are "unofficial", no Player is going to weasel his way
through something because of a rule's wording. Also I don't game with rule
lawyers, the suck the fun out of everything so I avoid them. I like
role-playing not rule-playing. But thats another subject all together.
In conclusion if you don't like what you see on the Netbook, don't use it.
But please don't attempt to supress others creative flow. I like to see
standing rules applied in new ways myself, but sometimes you have to take
it a step further. After all a setting this complex has more possible
situations then solutions...
Sepsis, rtifft@usa.net
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-
BR Netbook - http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6396/birth.html