Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8040846" data-attributes="member: 16814">Let me take a moment to unpack, here.&nbsp; I am not bothered at all by how you choose to play at your table.&nbsp; I think your rules, if your table likes them, are the absolute best way for you to play, and wish you all of the luck.&nbsp; However, if you come to a message board for advice/critique and then dismiss everything pointed out to you about how the rules work, that's annoying.&nbsp; Still, I wish you the happiest gaming possible.I, also, have a deep love for tearing apart games to see how they actually work -- what about them does what?&nbsp; This, to me, isn't about a slavish attention to the rules, but more about understanding how the game is intended to work versus how it actually works.&nbsp; This allows me to avoid the potholes when I run that game by making sure that intent and mechanics work in the best way possible and that I can present that game is a way that takes advantage of its strengths.&nbsp; Or, I can make the right changes to the game mechanics to better achieve what I want.&nbsp; When I see someone writing pages of &quot;clarifications&quot; for a game that is as direct as 5e in many cases, it's a red flag.&nbsp; It usually means that the person posting has a mismatch between their expectations of the game and what the game actually does, and so the &quot;clarifications&quot; or houserules are being added to bridge the gap.&nbsp; This often matches with a misunderstanding of what the rules are actually doing.&nbsp; 5e surprise rules, in this case, are very simple.&nbsp; Usually, people hide, and, if successful, cause the other side to be surprised.&nbsp; But, the rules are also pretty clear this isn't the only path.&nbsp; But, following 5e's design principle, they don't spell out all of the other possible ways, instead relying on natural language and the GM's judgement to make the call in other cases.&nbsp; What I see you doing to trying to apply a different design principle to the 5e rules, one more closely aligned with 3e or 4e, which is the exhaustive listing of how surprise happens.&nbsp; This is a mismatch -- you're not reading the 5e rule as intended but are instead reading it through the lens of your assumptions.&nbsp; Hence why you've received almost universal pushback on your claims in this thread.&nbsp; There's nothing at all wrong with your houserules, if that's the game you want to play.&nbsp; The problem here is that you're claiming that the 5e rules as written are aligned with your houserules.&nbsp; And, to do that, you dismiss the really operative words in the 5e rules that align with its design intent, like 'usually' and 'notice a threat'.&nbsp; I'd prefer that you really grasp how 5e is doing this before you start changing the rules, because that's the best way to make sure your changes align with your intent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8040846, member: 16814"] Let me take a moment to unpack, here. I am not bothered at all by how you choose to play at your table. I think your rules, if your table likes them, are the absolute best way for you to play, and wish you all of the luck. However, if you come to a message board for advice/critique and then dismiss everything pointed out to you about how the rules work, that's annoying. Still, I wish you the happiest gaming possible. I, also, have a deep love for tearing apart games to see how they actually work -- what about them does what? This, to me, isn't about a slavish attention to the rules, but more about understanding how the game is intended to work versus how it actually works. This allows me to avoid the potholes when I run that game by making sure that intent and mechanics work in the best way possible and that I can present that game is a way that takes advantage of its strengths. Or, I can make the right changes to the game mechanics to better achieve what I want. When I see someone writing pages of "clarifications" for a game that is as direct as 5e in many cases, it's a red flag. It usually means that the person posting has a mismatch between their expectations of the game and what the game actually does, and so the "clarifications" or houserules are being added to bridge the gap. This often matches with a misunderstanding of what the rules are actually doing. 5e surprise rules, in this case, are very simple. Usually, people hide, and, if successful, cause the other side to be surprised. But, the rules are also pretty clear this isn't the only path. But, following 5e's design principle, they don't spell out all of the other possible ways, instead relying on natural language and the GM's judgement to make the call in other cases. What I see you doing to trying to apply a different design principle to the 5e rules, one more closely aligned with 3e or 4e, which is the exhaustive listing of how surprise happens. This is a mismatch -- you're not reading the 5e rule as intended but are instead reading it through the lens of your assumptions. Hence why you've received almost universal pushback on your claims in this thread. There's nothing at all wrong with your houserules, if that's the game you want to play. The problem here is that you're claiming that the 5e rules as written are aligned with your houserules. And, to do that, you dismiss the really operative words in the 5e rules that align with its design intent, like 'usually' and 'notice a threat'. I'd prefer that you really grasp how 5e is doing this before you start changing the rules, because that's the best way to make sure your changes align with your intent. [/QUOTE]

Verification