A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7085
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Fri May 12, 2017 2:40 pm

I didn't intend to restart the argument. My bad, I suppose. Rather, I just wanted to point out how little extra it takes to make me happy...
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2209
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Fri May 12, 2017 4:33 pm

I think its an argument that appears from time to time after new people arrive, its not a bad thing, in this case its you (Solo) showing us how you like to houserule the game you've created, which I take as a "go and add what you feel is good for your table" approach and a "feel free to sum up your houserules but don't try to force them on others" idealism that I really appreciate, and that speaks highly of you.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Fri May 12, 2017 5:04 pm

Dimirag wrote:I think its an argument that appears from time to time after new people arrive, its not a bad thing, in this case its you (Solo) showing us how you like to houserule the game you've created, which I take as a "go and add what you feel is good for your table" approach and a "feel free to sum up your houserules but don't try to force them on others" idealism that I really appreciate, and that speaks highly of you.
indeed. It is a topic that really should be re-hashed regularly, lest we get drift towards other stances on the subject.

One thing that I will speak to is that I believe the a la carte method used here is not only fairly unique to BFRPG, but a really big draw for people (even if they don't realize it consciously). No one is forced to accommodate one of the options that they are not particularly fond of... so most only see the goodness and the ability to layer on the good things that they ARE fond of.

In other games (and to lesser extent even happens here), that people get dismayed by the portions of any particular game/edition that they DON'T like... not by the parts that they like a lot. Little bits that bother someone is sometimes the deal breaker that sends them to other game options that fit them better. By sticking to just the "Basics" and leaving the rest to individual discretion... we can keep the widest "audience" of prospective players.

Hoping that my point is clear... I know what I am trying to convey here, just not sure if it comes across just right. :shock: :shock:
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Fri May 12, 2017 11:22 pm

If this was a commercial venture it would make great sense to put together a companion and then later an "Exhumed Acroamata" to keep the coffers filled. Heck, maybe create some optional feat and spell cards. But this isn't a commercial venture so those things aren't needed.

I don't speak for Chris, but it seems to me what gets published in print format is the core rules along with campaigns and adventures. The Field Guide is the only "rules" type supplement that is in print and its more aimed at the GM than the players. It doesn't really affect any core rules since monsters are pretty fluid in the hands of a GM anyway.

I do wonder though if its possible to set up something where someone could create their own houserule set to include the core rules and their chosen supplements to be printed in a one off the same way Chris does the POD ones - just not put up for general sales.
User avatar
Longman
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:12 am

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Fri May 12, 2017 11:51 pm

Dimirag wrote: The problem with doing a file containing info on every optional thing is that it would be needed constant upgrade as soon as something new is added, plus, it has the risk of putting untested or unbalanced things in an "official" perspective and that's what we always try to avoid.

Same for a guide of how to create worlds or campaigns that is focused on the rules, not everyone will want or use the presented rules and not everyone will agreed that a specific optional rule is the best approach.
The proposed guide / blog post would not contain info on every optional thing and I didn't suggest it did. Secondly, there was no mention of labelling anything as "official". The intention was rather to highlight to new users the various options that the website prersents when designing a campaign.

Naturally, not everyone will agree that an optional rule is the best approach. That's why it's called an optional rule. I think that should go without saying.

Anyway, Solomoriah thought it might make a good blog post so I'm writing it sooner or later. You always have the option of not reading it or ignoring what it says.

On a related note: some of the older posters here are obviously fine with working your way through all the different options and picking the ones you want. That's great for you. You've been here for years. You might consider that a lot of newer posters here might find the array of materials far more confusing than you do.

It seems odd to me, and pretty pedantic, that anyone would raise objections to writing a blog post on this subject.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7085
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Sat May 13, 2017 12:03 am

Hywaywolf wrote:I do wonder though if its possible to set up something where someone could create their own houserule set to include the core rules and their chosen supplements to be printed in a one off the same way Chris does the POD ones - just not put up for general sales.
I've daydreamed about this. But getting the flow to work would be monstrous hard.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2209
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Sat May 13, 2017 10:17 am

Longman wrote: The proposed guide / blog post would not contain info on every optional thing and I didn't suggest it did. Secondly, there was no mention of labelling anything as "official". The intention was rather to highlight to new users the various options that the website prersents when designing a campaign.
You've said that the file would contain links to different optional races and classes, what I'm saying is that you must present every option instead of cherry picking so the reader can choose from the full material.
The "problem" with "official" stuff is a matter of presentation, if you present the file as a guide of optional rules people might think those are the only applicable optional rules, it should give clear notes that those are not the only optional rules and that that file is not the only possible incarnation of such compilation.
Longman wrote: Naturally, not everyone will agree that an optional rule is the best approach. That's why it's called an optional rule. I think that should go without saying.
I'm not speaking of an optional rule per se but on the variety of optional rules covering the same topic, if you present only one rule for one aspect of the game you are leaving out other rules that could like to other gamers.
Longman wrote: Anyway, Solomoriah thought it might make a good blog post so I'm writing it sooner or later. You always have the option of not reading it or ignoring what it says.
I've never say you should not do it or that I'm against it, so I don't see the point in tell me what I can not do :?
Longman wrote: On a related note: some of the older posters here are obviously fine with working your way through all the different options and picking the ones you want. That's great for you. You've been here for years. You might consider that a lot of newer posters here might find the array of materials far more confusing than you do.
Its not my way, its the way the forum took shape based on Solo's desire on not wanting optional stuff as official and the desire of other members of wanting optional stuff to remain as free flowing as possible, I like that, respect that and will defend it without calling names to those with different views.
Longman wrote: It seems odd to me, and pretty pedantic, that anyone would raise objections to writing a blog post on this subject.
Again, did I say something about you creating a blog? I'm speaking about anyone creating a file containing links or info about optional stuff.
Don't take personally comments that are not directed to you or the specifics of your doings.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 2364
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Sat May 13, 2017 12:32 pm

Obviously this topic brings up some heated (but hopefully healthy!) debate on opinions of optional rules and how they should be presented on this site. I'm temporarily locking this thread so that things will cool down, and I'll let Solo look at things.

I do look forward to Longman's post on the blog, and perhaps we can have others (including myself) weigh in on our own blog posts...
I like to point out spelling mistakes and post GIFs.
Adventure & Supplement Templates | Style Guide
My works on Showcase
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7085
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Sun May 14, 2017 8:10 am

I'm going to unlock this. Longman, Dimirag, it appears you've just had a misunderstanding... let's just let this go, okay?
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Sun May 14, 2017 11:15 am

Hywaywolf wrote:If this was a commercial venture it would make great sense to put together a companion and then later an "Exhumed Acroamata" to keep the coffers filled. Heck, maybe create some optional feat and spell cards. But this isn't a commercial venture so those things aren't needed.

I don't speak for Chris, but it seems to me what gets published in print format is the core rules along with campaigns and adventures. The Field Guide is the only "rules" type supplement that is in print and its more aimed at the GM than the players. It doesn't really affect any core rules since monsters are pretty fluid in the hands of a GM anyway.

I do wonder though if its possible to set up something where someone could create their own houserule set to include the core rules and their chosen supplements to be printed in a one off the same way Chris does the POD ones - just not put up for general sales.
I am in total agreement about there being a very different focus if this were a commercial product. In my mind, it is completely unnecessary to be emulating a commercial product methodology when we don't have that particular need. We don't need to try to be like the others. BFRPG has its own particular niche that can stand on its own.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests