Search results

Where is that assumed? Page and product please.

Are they surprised that they find that stamina in exactly the same way every morning?

How long until they apply that attitude to their work in "the world's greatest RPG"?

A perfectly acceptable stance to take at your table. Thank you for making your subjective personal feelings on this matter clear.

I could not disagree more. Who says the game's rules assume heroism (by which I assume you mean moral heroism)? And there is no reason that the rules can't or shouldn't reflect the setting. Even if you disagree, in what way is that "laughable"? For the record, I loved Dragonlance's explanation...

This is why my solution is to drop the official game altogether and find and/or make one that works for me and my people. I make the game better, instead of waiting in vain for WotC to do it.

Sure, but following WotC's flawed designs is on us, if we do it.

But that doesn't explain why you need WotC to make these changes to the entire game for you. Can't you just find or make what you want yourself? That's what I do.

That was probably me, and I stand by it. Having PC and NPCs capable of acquiring the same abilities under similar circumstances is hardly "crap" to me.

I suppose you're right, but you could easily create a subsection of the A5e rules with its own setting and optional rules, like A5e's Voidrunner's Codex for sci-fi play.

Forgive me if you made this clear earlier, but are you mainly looking for a revision that's just a lot more like 4e? I would not be in favor of that (or I suppose I wouldn't buy it). Moving to an encounter-based model as you suggest seems likely to harm the sim playstyle I play and enjoy RPGs for.

Level Up too. Rewritten core classes and a much stronger emphasis on the other two pillars.

Very depressing, but I find no fault in your logic. I think we'd all be better off making or finding the game we want to play, and letting WotC do what they want. It's not like we can affect them anyway; not nearly enough want the same thing to budge a big publically-traded company in its...

I change the system to make it function the way I want it to. And again, a full rewrite isn't necessary if you're using a decent base.

Well, we would have something to talk about 😉. That's all I'm looking for. Nobody in my real life to talk gaming with at the level I like.

Maybe not, but it's still a good idea, and some games based on a version of D&D have done it.

I don't think we should ditch the system (whatever system you like) entirely, but changing it to some degree is not that big a deal. I do it all the time.

In TTRPGs, it is much easier and socially acceptable to change the game to suit you and your group. Not the case with all your other examples.

Pretty much true, and IMO the game was better for it. This kind of balance concern interests me not at all. TSR's method of using its danger curve to compensate is much more appealing to me.

I guess I just haven't experienced the kind of OP you're talking about, or I care less about balance than you do, or both. It helps that my players don't go looking for 3pp. I do, and I present a houserule document containing everything I like for my players to choose from.