In D&D3.x there was an unbreakable rule that ‘specific beats generic’ (the only discussions were about what is more specific than the other, but I’m gonna leave it at that). If you generalise that rule, you end up with a mighty fine game rule.
Character abilities are exceptions from the rules.
You can’t disarm magic traps (unless you’re a rogue). You can’t attack more than one enemy at a time (unless you have Cleave). You subtract damage dealt from your total hp (unless you soak it with a shield). You can’t be a wizard and use a greatsword (unless you spend a feat slot). Your weapon cannot harm constructs/dragons/uncorporeals (unless its magic allows it). You can’t be a paladin (unless you are a human with high stats). I’m intentionally throwing examples from different systems here so that you get the idea better.
I’m planning to use this meta-rule for both designing and explaining one of the games I’m working on right now (yes, that fantasy heartbreaker). Seems cool so far.
The bonus conclusion here might be a straightforward implementation of action points, karma pool or whatever you call it. You want to break one of the rules? Spend a point. Universalis meets Gamism, ha-ha!
Advertisement
[...] how specific beats generic I’ve blogged about treating abilities as exceptions already, just want to quickly go back to say that it doesn’t need to be a straightforward [...]