Search results

Bladelock. Now you're literally incapable of using weapons. Because, remember, all those summoned pact weapons? Yeah, those have exactly the same strength requirement as any other weapon. You've literally just made the whole concept of the Blade Warlock--already something that requires near...

Yeah. The mechanics only tell you the result. It's completely up to the GM--completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary--what that result actually means, how that result happened. Nothing actually prevents the GM from saying it was meddlesome pixies, except the GM herself. Genuinely nothing.

I don't have much to say to the rest of your post, but this stood out. This is the school I belong to. You might (or might not) have seen previous posts of mine where I talk about this, about things I really do consider to be rules-as-tools. Rules, in the TTRPG sense (though also in other...

Though this goes even further beyond what I've called "groundedness". It's now a biased preference for, for lack of a better term, "realistically unrealistic" elements and against "unrealistically realistic" elements--even when the "unrealistically realistic" ones actually are more like reality...

No idea! But I've seen things that certainly look a lot like it. Yes, precisely! That's precisely what infuriates me about it. Like...you've just made the argument I've been making for...uh...~1700 posts now? An excellent question. My experience of discussing this with a number of people--as...

Nah. That's a punishment to Warlocks, who are already getting the short end of the stick as it is. Because somehow, WotC managed to find a way to have a full caster that actually does get screwed over by the rules. I hadn't thought it possible before 5e, but they managed it.

Okay...so if it only appears that way, what are they actually doing when they explicitly say such things?

Okay. I don't think we need a hypothesis to tell us that (a) taste varies and (b) different people know different stuff. I mean, I've literally been arguing that different people know different stuff this entire time. My whole spiel about Aristotelian physics and the nature of lockpicking was...

Overall, yea. It's a perk for (primarily) non-caster characters. On the flipside, I am mildly annoyed that certain weapons now come with a strength requirement, amongst other things.

Okay. I don't think we need a hypothesis to tell us that taste varies.

Again, how does this explain people's actual behavior? Because the actual behavior I see is not simply that W' is problematic very specifically because it conflicts with W. It is that W' must be eliminated and replaced with the alternative W" that does not have the Fs alleged to be invalid...

Irrelevant. That the production of baking powder, white flour, and refined sugar is prerequisite for baking a cake has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a particular cake recipe is wisely-constructed or not. Prerequisite things certainly do come first. That doesn't mean they have any...

Then you are, statistically speaking, in the minority. It is at least the plurality belief that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Not just feathers and sheafs of paper vs bricks and boulders. I'm talking ANYTHING heavier falling faster than ANYTHING lighter, in all circumstances...

@Don Durito has the right of it. Your dichotomy is false, because there is a third path. That is, you have stated that the only things we can do are follow the rule no matter how stupid it might be, or secretly disregard the rule while pretending we are in fact upholding it. The third path is...

I've touched on most of this sprinkled through the response to your final paragraph, but I wanted to say that I, too, am rather used to scientific thinking (my primary training is in physics, especially quantum physics, I only pursued a minor in philosophy). As someone pretty well steeped in...

Is this not the necessary consequence of the GM invalidating the rules when they decide the rules need to be invalidated? This is specifically why I oppose such things. Like this drives precisely at the heart of the matter. Ignoring the rules whenever you think they're being an impediment is...

Okay, but notice what these do. I'll call them P, Q, and R respectively (to reserve A/B/C/D for things specific to Enrahim's ideas). P means that subjective player understanding is what matters, not actual real-world fidelity. Hence, anyone who accepts it is already admitting that various forms...

This claim--if a rule is broad it necessarily has more corner cases--only applies if the rule is, as I have said many many times, specific and singular, applying a single, concrete thing to situations that aren't actually similar. It is completely avoided by the simple acceptance that all rules...

I intend to respond to this (much) more fully later. But the hyper-simple summary is, I'm running aground on the very starting premise. I flatly do not believe that even a world-class expert is guaranteed to be superior to any ruleset for this purpose. I find what you call the "hard FK...

Perhaps 5e should use fewer rules then? Remember, the player-facing rules of DW fit into all of, like, 15 double-sided pages (albeit with reduced art)? Something like that. The GM-facing ones are bigger only because they have to include monster stat blocks (it is, after all, a single book RPG.)...