Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8507959" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, so overall we agree, and I accept your point that 5e* cannot really be considered RAW 5e. My recollection is that [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]'s answer to that was at least partially that "well, sometimes 'no progress' can be fictionally signficant" didn't feel super compelling to me. It does give him some cover though, in that he could then argue that these are the ONLY cases where the examples are meant to apply. Frankly I don't buy this analysis of the 5e text myself, I think the game is just plain incoherent and isn't trying to be! The whole of '5e*' then feels much like an attempt to rehabilitate the text and give it some sort of post-hoc consistency that was, IMHO, never intended. Honestly whether '5e*' is thus colorable as 'RAW' or not at that point is not really a point I'm interested in anymore. Thus I feel more like the only profit is in trying to decide what CAN be attained in real world play. Whether Mike Mearls thinks how I play is RAW or not is not even faintly interesting to me, or to him AFAICT! So, I stick to my contention WRT [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] that you can't get where he's trying to go without really creating a system that includes a definition of roles and responsibilities, and an agenda and principles, and a play loop that are all working together to produce a result. At best lacking some of those you CAN wing it, and some people will do so successfully I suppose. IMHO 5e is not the best platform for that though. I'm always a bit befuddled as to why people so often insist in inserting the square peg in the round hole... lol.</blockquote>

Verification