Search results

You are welcome to believe all those pithy principle names (not to mention all the playbook moves) are clear as to their meaning, and perfectly align to their descriptions, but that is not a universally held opinion.

Sometimes, if exploring a world with setting logic as an important aspect is enjoyable to them. You can't have everything you like all the time, and you don't always get to choose which ones and for how long. I'm fine with that as a player, for my part.

By that definition, magical mind control of any stripe is out too.

Were they runes of demon summoning before the roll to interpret them, or after?

I've been told more than once (albeit from the same poster) that this thread is an exception, where folks are supposed to complain about the attitudes and opinions of D&D players.

The dice in certain games, in conjunction with the rules, can provide fairly clear examples of how to interpret a fail forward situation, and how not to. Star Wars (Fantasy Flight) is one such game.

If they don't play and don't want to play your games, what value do examples from those games give them?

Not a fan. Talk to your players and/or GM before you play, or work out disagreement as it occurs at the table. Creating binding rules that force the GM to behave in a certain way or make decision based on restrictive principles is not the way I want to play.

It doesn't seem to me to be just about how different games approach play. It seems IMO to be at least as much about coming up with cute, pithy names for those principles that people can repeat and associate with your product, even if those names don't seem to fit the principle for which they are...

Verisimilitude. Sometimes bad things, things we don't want, happen anyway. If you're exploring a world that operates in many ways similar to our reality, the universe doesn't provide special protection to personal talismans. Get a fireproof box.

Level Up works perfectly fine as a grittier game that can challenge your players PCs. WotC's recent offerings perhaps less so. 5e as a system is not the problem, as much as I love the OSR.

Full. Class. It's entirely doable, and has in fact been done more than once.

Sure seems like "do one thing with a clear intended purpose and no more" from a setting logic perspective.

Potentially the biggest problem is convincing people that reflavoring a statblock as "a horde" is an acceptable way to model the effect in a satisfying way.

Exactly! Advice, not a rules straightjacket dictating playstyle.

Awesome! I'll be able to pick it up while I'm there!

More than just the current IP owner too, by my reckoning.

Backed!

Have you looked at either of the 3pp/alternate 5e examples I've provided?

Why can't you do that now? Are you assuming WotC 5.5 only with no wiggle room? Because throwing self-imposed limits on what rules you're willing to use just makes getting what you want harder.