FrankTrollman wrote:How the fuck are you suposed to answer that question a priori?
You can easily answer such questions once you have decided on larger questions. We have already done this. Here is one specific example of the progression of rule building blocks we have used, prior to setting choice:
1A Do we want advancement for player character power or a static or diminishing power (such as in a horror game)?
1B Chosen: Pc power advancement. Next question: What kind of advancement do we want: leveled or point based?
1C Chosen: Leveled. Next question: How much more powerful should a maximum level character be than a minimum level character (slightly, moderately, extremely)?
1D Chosen: Extremely. Next question: How much more powerful should character level X be than a character level X –1 (slightly, moderately, extremely)?
1E Chosen: Slightly. Choices C and D necessitate that there be large number of levels. Next question: What is the limit of how many levels we want in the game?
1F Chosen: As many levels as possible, with the following restrictions:
- A character level X can be a slight threat to a character level X +2
- A group of X number of characters level Y can be a reasonable threat to a character level Y+4
- A group of X number of characters level Y cannot be a reasonable threat to a character level Y+10
- Since this is a classed game (chosen in another progression), we need detailed abilities for each class for each level. This requires effort, which is limited.
1G Given the above, 20 to 30 levels are chosen.
Next basic rule foundation tree.
On every step of the choices that were made, there was discussion for how that impacts the game. Alternate solutions were put forward, and their consequences explored and explained in detail. At no point did somebody leap to a conclusion which ignored possible solutions.
Rules = Setting.
If you make the setting first, and you don’t know all possible rules, then by definition you are limiting the possibilities of your setting.
I speculate that some of the setting disagreements might disappear if a foundational rule-based approach would be used to evaluate the rules-setting.
One good example is the TNE races thread. You don’t want centaurs and pixies because it supposedly destroys the setting. That is the wrong way to think about the issue. The right way would be to ask questions like “Is it possible to create rules for non-humanoid Pc’s without breaking game balance? Is it possible to create rules for non-humanoid Pc’s which doesn’t destroy a setting based on humanoid Pc’s?” This seems very likely. Pc’s don’t need to be carbon copies of stereotypes, that has been made very clear. And given the crazy things we expect Pc’s to be able to do at higher levels, a few “monstrous” qualities for Pc’s seems trivial.
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe