Search results

It would make sense if it was a stance they could switch at will. A stance indicates the fighter is trying to setup whatever the weapon mastery is giving. I could suspend my disbelief on that one.

It kind of goes along with the idea, "What the DM says goes, and if the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go"

A Martial "switching" something on a daily basis is why I don't play 5e. My group would never get past that moment.

I don't believe you have to be an expert in the way you are saying. The only kinds of games I enjoy are well designed and well thought out worlds crafted by a DM who is into it. It's why I used to DM a lot (I went to grad school so that is another story). It's also why my table was never...

Obviously it would depend on how blatant it was, right? That a snake climbed down a rope would likely not draw much attention. It also depends on the educational background of the people playing. If they are snake specialists (or at least one is) then a comment is more likely forthcoming.

This is certainly true in a traditional D&D campaign.

Just to chime in here on this entirely new topic... The idea of suspension of disbelief is that some baseline exists. It doesn't mean that if you can knock people out left and right ith a single punch that you can also accept leaping across chasms no human could possibly leap or falling 100...

This works for the prime material plane but still doesn't explain how they get to the prime material plane.

I think a single game should not try to please everyone. Too many people want to play rules as written and blindly follow them wherever they go. I'm for mechanical innovations like roll high etc.. But changing the fundamental playstyle of D&D to something like PbtA is not something I'd...

Honestly nothing is a necessity. Modern D&D isn't even D&D by the standards of the original. We all have what we hold dear as essentials of the playstyle. D&D keeps doing new things and we keep adopting, discarding, or ignoring as we choose. As the fan of a game, I do wish they'd stuck to...

Sure. I may argue to the validity of my style which seems at times to be under attack. It's like chocolate ice cream has just come out and I have to defend why I like vanilla better. A game is meant to be fun and if a group of people are playing a game and enjoying it and not hurting anyone...

PbtA games are vastly different that D&D as a general rule. I am sure many on here mix and match elements but those people are pioneers. I don't play with PbtA elements at all and actively do not like them.

There is a very big mushy middle that just plays the latest version of D&D. Counting them as having an opinion is a stretch. From what I have seen, most players do not. They may after they get to know a DM but not from the get go. So? I think DMs are trying to create a fun experience. I...

I would have thought the current game is basic.

I agree with you but for me it's more a matter of me being allowed to play my character. When a skill roll forces me to fall in love with someone, I don't feel like I really have agency over my character. It's nothing to do with negatives. I'm all for negatives in their proper context.

We might debate sizes of groups etc.. but I think it would be nonproductive. Let's just say there are diverse playstyles out there. This is another of our debates. Sadly, I don't think players on average are as likely to be working in good faith unless it's a well tried group of friends...

Most groups are wealthy after their first adventure by most standards but you mean kingly wealth. I get that from the whole post.

I would argue if it doesn't happen it's not really roleplaying. What do you think playing a role is? In combat, my players will narrate their combat actions and then roll. I believe in many cases it would be better if the players just roleplayed and the DM rolled the rolls for reactions due to...

These terms are pretty foreign to me besides "sandbox" and since you are using it here I'm not sure it even means the same thing. In my campaigns, I design the sandbox ahead of time, I create major NPCS with agendas that drive events over time inside the sandbox, and I let the PCs act & react...

Well here is the situation... 1. If I have gotten in this situation then I've failed to vet my players. 2. The answer is yes and no depending on the issue but I suppose if I take it as asking is there ANY scenario here I would say yes then yes. I will say that in 1e players lost magic items...