Search results

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...

I mean, there might be exceptions? But they're going to be VASTLY outnumbered by things that follow the pattern. Rules design is a really, really difficult thing. Hoping that your artists happened to send you art that worked for making good rules does not sound like a productive game plan, even...

Then people need to stop calling 5e a game, because it isn't a game by this standard. It's a game "system". Also the word "campaign" is now useless, since "this game [read: game system] applied to our specific interests" is...literally what "a campaign" has always meant. Seems to me like this...

When I say "almost all of the time", I mean so often that many people will never encounter an exception. Hence why, even in my original post, I said one-in-a-million. Exceptions are so rare, I've never seen one. Ever.

Okay but like...what do we DO with that? Because now that means discussing 5e is genuinely impossible. There is no such thing as "5e". There are a million different games which are fundamentally and inherently completely distinct from one another, because this game-as-artifact makes every table...

I don't see how this follows at all. "There is some other description, beyond 'the lock is now open'" says nothing whatever about the player having the freedom to invent whatever they want as that some-other-description. All it says is that the state of play has changed in some way more than...

Well, as noted, the difference lies in the player's behavior. In essentially every case I've ever seen or heard of where someone uses this phrase, it's only given after the harmful act has been completed; it's used as an excuse or justification, a "well I had no choice, I had to do it, my...

Exactly. If we take the "squint and they're similar enough" stance, easily half the classes of the game simply disappear in a puff of logic--all while genuinely reducing the number of well-supported archetypes the game contains. Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Rogue could all be Fighter...

Well, except for the fact that there isn't a fey sorcerer, nor a fiendish sorcerer, nor hexblade, genie, undead, etc. Further, there isn't a clockwork warlock, nor a draconic warlock, nor lunar, storm, or shadow. At best you can argue that draconic is vaguely like genie and wild is vaguely...

Okay? And? Warlock and Sorcerer were invented in 3e and changed, drastically, in both 4e and 5e. Just because it's only had a particular name in a specific edition doesn't mean it can't exist further. Hence why I referenced Magus. And, importantly, there were a couple of base classes that match...

So D&D is a bad game then? Because the rules of D&D inherently are not specific to a single world, and never have been. That's why we talk about "implied" settings rather than inherent ones. All the way back to Gygax, we have had a D&D specifically engineered to NOT be specific to a single...

Perhaps. But I have found in every single case, in my own personal experience, where a player's response to others' ire is "but it's what my character would do!!", it is being used as a blatant fig-leaf excuse for behavior that was knowingly disruptive, harmful, and in violation of the group's...