Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question
Posted: 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...
indeed. It is a topic that really should be re-hashed regularly, lest we get drift towards other stances on the subject.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.
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.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.
I've daydreamed about this. But getting the flow to work would be monstrous hard.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.
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.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.
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: 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'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 doLongman 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.
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: 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.
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.Longman wrote: It seems odd to me, and pretty pedantic, that anyone would raise objections to writing a blog post on this subject.
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.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.