| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
those look like a combination of words made up by a marketing exec pretending that something really simple and obvious is actually revolutionary
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or how Ultimate Wilderness had a character class that was capable of adapting on the fly to fluidly address any encounter...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A guess on my part...
Well, Clean is opposed to messy. In otherwords, I'd say it means straightforward.
Modular means that things can be added and taken out easily.
Information-based indicates that the rules are more for those trying to get the rules rather than something written as fiction or to solely entertain. In otherwords, just as it says, information based. Facts and Rules.
Design...this is how it is structured and made.
In otherwords...Straightforward worded, able to easily add or subtract rules, written as FACTS and RULES, type design?
That gets a little wordy though...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Information-based indicates that the rules are more for those trying to get the rules rather than something written as fiction or to solely entertain. In otherwords, just as it says, information based. Facts and Rules.
I really hope this breaks away from some of the RAW/RAI arguments especially around spells.
One of my biggest gripes with pathfinder has been how the spells often seem long winded and open to different interpretations rather than just saying "It does X, Y and Z it can't do A, B and C"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this means that all mechanics will be written in a technical writing style and all the creative writing is saved for descriptions, then I'll be extremely happy.
If this means they are creating an internal rules bible for how each type of rule element should be worded, that all developers will be beholden to, and editors will have the authority to use in editing, then I'll be ecstatic.
If this means that rules won't be spread out throughout 3 or 4 sections (sometimes in non-intuitive places--Starfinder armor all having communication devices I see you), like incorporeal, fear, and other things, then I'll love it.
If any of these doesn't happen, and we end up with the same non-comprehensive rules jumble we currently have, with each developer seemingly writing with a different understanding of rules and/or different level of vetting freelancer work before publishing, then it likely becomes a dealbreaker for me in the long run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's just buzzwords, like 80% of the blog and FAQ. And all the wrong buzzwords too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question here is: Why does Paizo hate commas? ;-)
What it means to me is that game mechanics are clear in how they interact with each other, and that if they don't appeal to your playstyle, they can be easily omitted without breaking the rest of the system, or tweaked as you see fit (ex: I want Weapon Focus to have more benefit, so the bonus increases from +1 to +2 and I understand how that will affect the rest of the system).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding support for this, to bump it up the chart.
Rules are no place for euphemism, synonyms, allusion, symbolism, and vaguery.
I understand that the writers and developers need space to scratch their creative itch, and audition their writing skills to us, ready for the day they embark on their solo fiction writing career, bursting free from the amniotic sac of their old day job, like a chimerical amalgam of peacock and phoenix.
But it doesn't belong in the rules text.