So 5e should not allow a believable representation of a fantasy world, but actually model D&D itself?
Naaaaaa...
Which version of D&D should it model? Because honestly, it's never been good at modeling fantasy worlds.
So 5e should not allow a believable representation of a fantasy world, but actually model D&D itself?
Naaaaaa...
You make choices for your character, but in the end, his fate is a matter of random chance.
That's an interesting point of divergence between 4e and earlier editions, actually.Like combat? Like walking down the street in real life? That's sort of why those dice and crayon are in the box, so to speak.
Perfect balance is impossible to achieve without making everyone identical (like sides are in Chess). Near perfect balance takes years of constant tweaking to achieve (like the balance in Starcraft). (What I call) Acceptable balance is pretty much how 3E looks below level 6.
You make choices for your character, but in the end, his fate is a matter of random chance.
The thing that started this little digression was the popularity of the Deck of Many Things. Mitigating it's randomness by 'smart play' would consist of not using it. That would not exactly explain it's popularity...The whole point of old school play is to mitigate those chances of random death by smart play in the first place....
I think that's kind of the point, though. Were the DoMT not tempting, if players didn't get to see its potential effects, then it would not be so hard to exercise restraint. It is those tough decisions that make the game work as a game.The thing that started this little digression was the popularity of the Deck of Many Things. Mitigating it's randomness by 'smart play' would consist of not using it. That would not exactly explain it's popularity...
I think that's kind of the point, though. Were the DoMT not tempting, if players didn't get to see its potential effects, then it would not be so hard to exercise restraint. It is those tough decisions that make the game work as a game.
With several independent PCs, the odds are that some will and some won't. The last time I used one, I think two didn't and one did. IME, most but not nearly all PCs avoid the DoMT, which represents how most but not all players are risk-averse in general.Somehow I don't think I've ever heard a gaming story where they just didn't play with a Deck.
Really? Forgoing or forsaking a great but risky magical power is kind of a fantasy trope. Isn't that the whole point of LotR? That you have this great magic ring but can't do anything with it and have to get rid of it? What's memorable is not the item itself, but what that item brings out of the characters.But would that actually be fun?
Here's this fantastic magic item. You can win incredible things or you can die. It's a total crap shoot.
If the right answer is, "I put it down and never look at it again", that's a bit of a let down isn't it? It might be the right answer, but, it's about as memorable as watching paint dry.
Last time I saw a Deck in my game I think 4 of 6 party members drew from it; the other two peered out from behind a hedge. (after which one of the PCs stole it from the party, left the party, took it to town, and sold it...)With several independent PCs, the odds are that some will and some won't. The last time I used one, I think two didn't and one did. IME, most but not nearly all PCs avoid the DoMT, which represents how most but not all players are risk-averse in general.