Steve, how 'bout a "Reasoning Behind" forum?

[PhilFleischmann]

Steve (et al.):

I don't mean to pile on more work for you, especially since you've been doing such a great job with the 5e rules questions forum, but I'd like to see a similar one where you can address rules "arguments."

That might not be the best way to describe it. What I'd like to see is a forum where we can ask specific questions about why certain rules decisions were made. I'd like to see the reasoning behind some of the ones where many have disagreements. Some examples are Regeneration, Instant Change, and many of the Talents. You know what I mean - the ones people argue about on these boards. "FREd says X, which doesn't make sense for reason Y, therefore I change it to Z in my games."

FREd included some general "meta-rules" which were interesting and useful to see. If we knew the reasoning behind what some of us see as odd rules, perhaps we would by less likely to want to change them.

[Steve Long]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'd rather not do that for a couple reasons:

1. It would be a significant demand on my already-limited time. Answering a discrete rules question isn't very time-consuming about 80 times out of 100. Answering a "why" question would be time-consuming just about every time, I think.

2. IMO it would lead to a lot of needless arguments, sarcasm, accusations, and other general unpleasantness. Looking too much at the "man behind the curtain" only spoils the magic. ;)

3. I'm not sure what it would accomplish. People who agreed with my reasoning wouldn't care. People who disagreed with it wouldn't all of a sudden be persuaded.

On occasion I answer "why" questions where I can do so quickly, easily, and in a manner that I think won't cause any of the problems raised in #2 - #3. But those situations are rare.

[TheEmerged]

/humor on

Oh come on, Steve, we all know you're just afraid we'll Bum Rush you about Damage Shield :rolleyes:

/humor off

Having made a crack, let me take the opportunity to thank y'all for how much work you DO put into the board community.

[austenandrews]

I second that.

-AA

[Black Rose]

All those in favour, say 'aye'. :D

[Col. Orange]

Originally posted by Black Rose
All those in favour, say 'aye'. :D

...and a silence filled the room. :D

[Lord Liaden]

Isn't it a legal principle that silence denotes consent? ;)

I try not to sound like a broken record on this issue, but at the risk of being repetitive, I am very grateful for Mr. Long's continued strong board presence. Not just his accessibility, but the reassurance that Hero Games's management continues to listen and respond to their fans. The frustrating silence from Cybergames is all but forgotten. :)

Oh, and I expect we all would bum rush Steve over Damage Shield if given the opening. :p

[Citizen Keen]

So, for the unitiated, what's everybody's beef with Damage Shield?

[sbarron]

Originally posted by Citizen Keen
So, for the unitiated, what's everybody's beef with Damage Shield?

It was cheaper in 4th edition than it is now. It has become pretty expensive actually. Most people think too expensive. I'll leave someone who has an opinion on this to say more.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Citizen Keen
So, for the unitiated, what's everybody's beef with Damage Shield?

Put briefly? Damage Shield went from somewhat underpriced to notably overpriced -- to the point of being effectively useless in campaigns using an active point cap. Since that's no trivial percentage of campaigns, it's not a popular change. This happened because Damage Shield was changed to require Continuous/Constant powers (it's been called a "clarification" but it's not supported by any previous product releases). What's more, this change made a few already-problematic cases (notably Suppress and Clinging) more viable because the change didn't affect them.

Personally I find the change in how Suppress works to be more of an issue, your mileage probably varies and all that.

[zornwil]

I think "reasoning behind" would make good Dig. Hero article(s) on occassion if Steve is so inclined. I would like to see more of that in the designer's notes in the HERO books, not to say it's problematic now, the designer's notes have been adequate as needed, but it could be expanded.

But I think as a separate forum it's a tad much and would require a lot of Steve's time.

[Kaeto]

Or how about shapeshift?
If you don't buy it for every Sense Group it's not much more than an illusion.

I for one would like to know the reasoning behind this one.


There are a few others I wouldn't mind knowing about, but other wise I love the work Steve has put into Fred

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Kaeto
Or how about shapeshift?
If you don't buy it for every Sense Group it's not much more than an illusion.

I for one would like to know the reasoning behind this one.


There are a few others I wouldn't mind knowing about, but other wise I love the work Steve has put into Fred

Mind if I take a stab? All shapeshifting EVER did was effectively create an image not subject to PER rolls. 5th Edition just changed the cost structure to reflect that, and added a couple of IMO interesting ramifications (just what DOES it mean to have Shape Shift vs Mental?).

[Grailknight]

I second Zornwil's motion. Perhaps we could do a monthly poll to see which topic was expounded upon .

[Syberdwarf2]

Personally, I think such a forum would be a huge waste of time; not just for Steve, but for all of us. First off, a pretty hefty chunk of the boards is taken up by debates over topics such as Damage Shield, STR being too cheap et cetera.
Second, if such a thing were to become a Digital Hero article or column, it would take up space that could be used to provide game source material as it has been.

The Discussion Boards provide a place to; ask questions, poll opinions, mine for ideas, and yes--debate topics. Providing a unified forum specifically for the purpose of deabting topics-that-no-one-can-agree-on wouldn't stop them from being discussed all over these boards as they already are.