The Goal

 Thesis

    Having been around for a very short amount of time, and having relatively little experience with the majority of TTRPGs out there, I have found myself wanting more, not in the sense of a different game system, heaven knows that's been tried, but rather in the sense of different rules.  More specifically, a different type of rules, and not the loosening or tightening of rules, but a wholly different approach.

    The Goal, then, is thus: To create rules which are system-agnostic.  Rules which do not require an entire book of other rules to operate, which in my observations has been the stumbling-block which many encounter in [REDACTED]*

    I do not claim sole ownership of this idea, as I have probably synthesized it from a hundred** different sources, yet it is still the idea I wish to pursue, or should I say, have pursued.  

* D&D5e, which shall be mentioned in redacted form only, because... because... uh, eh?

**tens

 Argument

    The purpose of having rules is to provide a sense of order, to give a game structure, and to provide a means of adjudication where a dispute cannot be settled.  I arrive at this definition of purpose through personal experience in what happens when no formal rules are established; chaos, slowly or perhaps quickly spiraling into utter chaos.  In the effort of make-believe, as role-playing is in essence, rules must be established.  Otherwise, the game devolves into a kind of chaos, one which cannot possibly result in fun, as the chaos that may exist within bounds might, but rather confusion.  This confusion slowing imagination to a halt, as reasoning is employing in the puzzling out of what ruling to make on-the-fly.

    As such, a game, or that which purports to be a game, which does not have rules, is no game at all.  It is as a word without a definition, meaningless, and in reality, nonexistent.  In contrast to this is a game in which the rules fail to meet these objectives, which is perhaps worse.

     A game system, then, is a series of rules all meant to work together to form a cohesive whole.

    A strange case of this is [REDACTED], which, taking a modern approach, not only forms a cohesive system, but has almost all rules connected to each other, such that if one were to be removed or replaced, the system would falter and fail.  This is acceptable if at least two requirements can be met: that the system does not fail at any point in having cohesive rules, and that the system is constructed well enough to discourage making any changes by virtue of its quality alone.  (The reason why I say "acceptable" is because the very nature of TTRPGs, and board games as a whole, is to house-rule, home-brew, and to change any or all aspects of a given game.  To ignore such would be pure foolishness.)

    Unfortunately, [REDACTED] fails on all counts.  This does not mean that such an undertaking is impossible, but simply that this is an instance of failure.

    However, what pushes a mere failure to the point of being egregious, is the concept of modularity that the game proposed.  An aspect of the game which I have only recently come to understand was used in the marketing of the game, and one which is evident in the DM's guide for the game, which offers an incredible amount of modularity (Even though it is one of the only examples in all of the books for game).  The problem herein arises from the fact that this modularity was not fully delivered, with the design of the game moving forward assuming that none (or less and less) of the modular rules were to be used.

Proposal

    So, why the long tangent on a specific failure of [REDACTED]?

    If rules are to be used to construct some greater whole, it would be preferable, in my eyes, for the individual rules to not be able to break the system.

    One way of going about this would be to create a system of rules which fit together.

    Another way would be to not have any of the rules rely on each other.

    If an individual game designer intends for a specific experience, one which may fit a certain group/DM's style of play, when constructing a game, then the first way would be better utilized.

    But, if the freedom to construct the set of rules is given to individual DMs, though there would be less cohesion, the rules would better fit different group/DM's styles of play.

Conclusion

    Once again, I must state that I do not claim to be the sole originator of such an idea, especially as this exact practice is already the way many play D&D.  As well, I do not claim to be the sole distributor of such rules, nor do I think it would be effective if I were, but rather, I intend to add yet more rules onto the pile and into the pool from which Dungeon Masters may pull from to construct the games which fit their tables' sensibilities.