Search results

OK, lets assume that's more-or-less correct. What point are you actually trying to make? This conversation started when I stated that: If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition. And you replied directly to that...

Interesting, thanks. By that definition, it still wouldn't apply in my "20 people in the face of the enemy" scenario (or, if it did, it would fall into the narrow band of tactical scenarios).

I've probably already made this point multiple times, but just chiming in again to say I agree this is absolutely the case.

If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres. This manoeuvre may be part of some larger strategic plan, but those people on the ground doing the manoeuvring are engaged in tactics (in a modern setting, we'd call it...

I voted 5+, but my group is a roleplaying group, not a "D&D" group. We have played 1e, 3e and 4e D&D, as well as ACKS (a B/X derivative) and some other d20-era games, but lots of non-D&D games as well. (Edit: oh, and we're playing Dark Sun at the moment, which might half count, but we're not...

I was confused as well. However, where "tactical" has been put in scare-quotes, I assume they're referring to gamey, grid-based, careful positioning and power-combo tactics. With a generous interpretation, @borringman is thus saying that, in the real world, you don't want to engage the enemy on...

If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition. Your outfitting, logistics and expedition goals might be strategic.

OK, that's a little easier to understand. It's still completely outside my experience, as I've had stable groups throughout my roleplaying career (current group has been around for over two decades, with only occasional personnel changes), but if you're regularly playing with different people, I...

OK, I get it. Some people have to deal with players who will argue with everything they can any time they think it will provide them with additional advantage, and it clearly disrupts their games. That, to me, makes it a plyer issue, and I don't know why people are OK in groups like that, but...

They absolutely don't call on authorities outside our group in order to try and browbeat me into making rulings in their characters' favour, no. Nor would they stop the game to argue a point until they get their way. Or any other, similar, immature, antisocial behaviour. Yes, my players do...

shrug An ongoing sequence of short arguments that disrupt the game is no less alien to me, and I remain unable to understand how or why anyone would play like that. I would not game with the sort of people who go to Sage Advice (or Reddit, or whatever) seeking ammunition to win an argument at...

I wouldn't define the sort of thing we're talking about as vaguely or poorly written rules, I consider them written in an open-ended fashion, leaving room for interesting interpretations and GM adjudication on edge cases. This is a good thing, in my opinion, not a problem. But yes, I do consider...

Just another reason to be happy with my group, I guess, and glad that I've never felt any need to gather a bunch of "typical D&D players" from the wider community.

I have one player who is particularly likely to try this kind of thing. But he will find as many edge cases and interesting uses for his character's powers and abilities as he possibly can prior to play, so we can have the discussion when there is no time pressure. If he comes up with something...

As I mentioned earlier, I just don't understand how these things are an issue if you have a reasonable group, capable of having a reasonable conversation, and a process for arriving at a ruling or decision. That said I have no problem with people who want tighter wording -- while it's not my...

I didn't include this part in my quoted text, but @Minigiant also said: Hence my comment about not needing to define every spell.

I was responding directly to a discussion of using the loose wording to insert unwanted toilet humour into the game. At best, this a problem of mismatched expecations; it simply is not a problem with wording of the spell. In general though, I agree it's not necessarily about "problem players"...

It's bizarre to me that anyone would conclude that the way to keep toilet humour out of their game is tighten the definition of a spell that in no way implies it should be used in that way in the first place. How about the other infinite number of ways this kind of thing could be done in any...

Oh, OK. That makes much more sense to me now. Given @jayoungr understood you, I will assume the failure of communication was at my end. :cool:

"Most loudly ran back to..." Your overall point seems mostly reasonable but, again, you're phrasing this in a way that seems to imply some kind of moral failing by those GMs who weren't interested in 5e, and I'm not sure why you'd do that.