Easters are mine for the rabbit eatin’.

I think it finds the proper balance between conciliatory and intentionally offensive.

Thats the proper balance? ………Well it looks fully offensive.

Good list… I think I would start with Samuel Clemens, Benjamin Franklin, and then go from there. We would definitely have Alice in common… Possibly Hepburn.

Every role-playing game has rules, sometimes strict rules, for role-playing. The thing is, usually those rules are provided by the players, aren’t written down or expressed until they’re broken, and may not be the same for everyone at the table.

I’m suggesting that games can provide those rules themselves, and make sure they support the rest of the game’s mechanics.

Rules don’t have to involve dice, as diceless RPGs demonstrate. I don’t want to see games where you roll 2d6+WIL to determine if your character is redeemed. I don’t have a fully realized alternative suggestion yet (working on it). But I’m convinced that the rules determine the kind of play you get out of a game. If you have a lot of rules for combat, you’ll get a lot of combat. If you have rules for role-playing, you might get role-playing without hoping it emerges from the players’ different unspoken desires.

I think games like Prime Time Adventures point in that direction and show that it might be possible to have rules for role-playing without killing the spirit of role-playing.

I’ll get back to you on this.

“Class roles are well-defined.”
It might have been better to say, “They’ve strengthened class roles.” The different classes are almost equally necessary for an effective party, and that means more meaningful choice for players and more equal participation during play.

“And the rules encourage and reward party unity!”
Previous editions failed to encourage it. From a game design standpoint, I think that’s the same as discouraging it, but I recognize that it’s a splittable hair.

I agree that unified mechanics aren’t necessary for a good game. But, just for an example, significantly different mechanics for different types of characters can act as a barrier to new players and GMs. It’s easier to pick up a new game if you only have to learn one set of rules. Making all character types function the same on a mechanical level might not be the best choice for role-playing, but from the standpoint of a game meant for people to play and enjoy, I think it’s a worthy goal.

This sounds like you are suggesting rules for role-playing, which sounds like a form of rail roading to me. When I think of rules I think of “times at the table when we throw dice,” everything else is roles and role-playing. Tales of redemption (or, not) like Dove seems to beg are NOT going to come from rules. Ever.

This is why I bristle when people call 4e’s Skill Challenge System a new or innovative thing. Well, it’s part of the reason, but I digress.