Search results

I assume "core" here is being defined narrowly, in the sense of the first three books published for the edition? Namely PHB(1)-equivalent, DMG(1)-equivalent, and MM(1)-equivalent?

Which is not the same as saying it can't happen.

For the love of God, I hope so. It might force D&D to actually ask important questions of itself. Like whether or not the traditions it stubbornly clings to no matter what, are actually productive or not.

So, just to be absolutely clear... Even if every single person at the table, including the GM, agrees that the "truth and veracity of the fictional world" actively and directly leads to an experience all of them genuinely dislike--not even in the "losing sucks but always winning sucks more"...

Lanefan. What people keep telling you--and what you keep stubbornly ignoring--is that if you don't have an established-by-fiction reason for something, you can't do it. You cannot just declare that any hope you might have, no matter how ridiculous, is just...what happens. That's literally...

But the assertion was that "game" is ONLY that last thing. Which means game discussion forums now do not and cannot have any merit. "Game" is ONLY what happens at each individual specific table, completely and totally disconnected from everything else.

I don't know, maybe that you now have access to the thing you have a good, well-founded reason to believe is on the other side? How is this difficult? If you're picking a lock to break out of a prison cell, your hoped-for description when you succeed is that you're free and nobody has noticed...

Agreed on illusionist, not so much on assassin, but that's neither here nor there. There are some things which just aren't quite enough on their own. Were we to start from scratch, in a world that had never been (heavily) shaped by D&D itself, some of the things we currently recognize as...

Per those principles: There is no play--whatsoever--in rules. There is only play in the world. That was explicit: "Abstractions are, by their very nature, mechanistic. Non-playful." I don't understand how one can "step away from play" and yet still be addressing the world. Yes, you are...

I mean, I guess? But doesn't that rather poke a hole in your claim that "game" is something that actually integrates all the stuff? You now have world being genuinely separate from "game", because world gets changed outside of play, and then game--if necessary--changes to match. That seems to...

But again that makes point 7 completely irrelevant. If everyone agrees that making the "veracity and truth" of the world inviolate is what is enjoyable, then point 7 is not only not needed, it is actively antagonistic to point 1. It creates a method by which the players can destroy their own...

But the huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge difference: In this, no party is keeping a massive store of knowledge that cannot even in principle be acquired by the others, all parties know the rules which bind their own action and others, and all parties ARE in fact bound by rules...

Perhaps. Just from that very first principle, however, I find something to at least raise my eyebrows at. "If, at any point, any aspect of the game begins to clash with the veracity and truth of the fictional world, change it." That means, even if everyone at the table agrees that something...

Well, I don't! I think all of those should be classes, and a few more besides. (I'm of the opinion that 5e is missing between five and twelve class-fantasies. I'm not what I would call a "maximalist"--not the opposite of a minimalist, that is--but rather advocating what I see as a complete...

Not in anything more than very remotely like D&D. I might be able to enjoy an evening of Paranoia, where you legitimately have multiple clone backups so getting a short knife between the ribs isn't an instant character-ender, and the whole (and very explicit) point of the experience is that it...

I pretty thoroughly disagree, but part of that is because, as I've said previously, I don't really feel you have given a fair shake to the descriptions given to you. That is, you're hounding for every possible exploitative approach, rather than recognizing that it is--explicitly--part of the...

I think this perfectly encapsulates exactly why I have not merely zero but extreme negative interest in this sort of thing. That, quite literally, is explicitly calling for a cycle of never-ending revenge, of "getting one over" on the person who wronged you, back and forth and back and forth...

Perhaps I am. I don't think the things you bring up are actually a counterexample to what I've said. I see that as "I really love these comics and wish to use those as the thematic inspiration for sitting down to do the hard design work, from which new art (or curated and reformatted existing...

I don't see how. Three points were made. 1. We cannot design "a game"--in the way @clearstream defined such, noting that I deeply disagree with that definition but had taken it up for the sake of argument--by designing every part simultaneously from whole cloth. The examples given would seem...

No. But this is such a disingenuous argument I cannot reasonably respond to it. Like I genuinely do not understand how anyone seriously arguing could ever conclude this from what was said. You are inserting, without any justification, the idea that the player may invent ANY other description...