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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8386267" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Well, YMMV, but when combined with an entire book that tells you that reading the rules is not important to what's the best in the game, don't you think that this is a bit bizarre ?This might be true if ruleslawyering had not been completely discouraged by other features like fuzzy rules and setting the DM firmly on decision making, not the players. But the combination of these features diminish it so strongly that it has completely disappeared from any game that we have played since 5e came out.Which just goes to prove that the intent of the game is storytelling and not technical/legal writing.See above, fortunately, in the game design, it's consistent and achieves the required effect, so I'm happy.One of the main benefits is having shorter,more compact rules, avoiding ruleslawyers learning all of them by heart and cross-referencing rules and definitions all over the place (and powergamers of course mentioning only the rules that go in their direction, just like they forget half the book when reading it because it does not support their claim that of course the game is supposed to be technical).Also, by using non-technical words, the game shows that it is meant to be non-technical, therefore see the paragraph above, but then it makes it easy for the GM (who has read the whole book and its spirit/intent) to remind them that he makes the rulings, the book does not make the rulings, and therefore do not make the rulings based on the books.Of course, but it's much better than empowering the players who have much less sense of responsibility in general (I mean, good players have, but in general it's a bit lost on many of them, especially those with a bias in playing).No he does not. IF you think that the rules say this, prove it to me. The right spirit of the game, as explicitely stated and which causes no problem whatsoever to our groups is that, when the player tries something, he will ask the DM what he does and accept the ruling. The rules themselves tell you so. So why would the player insist that some rules are absolutely to be followed and others not ?The rules cannot tell you everything about what could happen in edge cases. It is my experience, and the designers themselves have told you so: "Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable." That has been tried and proven in 3e, for example. So why insist on repeating the same mistake ?And the DMs accept it. Where exactly is the worry about this ?And again, technical character building is not the point of the game. If you think it is, please prove it, but it's not necessary at all for a game "about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery".And our players accommodate themselves perfectly of choosing something because it looks cook, trying it in the game and being happy with a cool description (that usually the DM will let them do themselves because he trusts them not to abuse it - because that's the problem of letting powergaming players do the decision, they will make it so that they can abuse it later, preferencably when it combines with another unexpected features, and they will then whine when it's nerfed).No, he would not, because it's not the spirit of the game, unless you forcefully make it so. But the game itself does not tell you that it's horrible, and does not tell the player to be horrible and anal about this, because, once more, the game does not tell you to optimise everything to the gills.It only widened it for people who were already ruleslawyers and who want to go to the next level, arguing about dictionaries. But that's not a problem, because at the same time it gave the DMs all the tools that they need to shutdown that obnoxious (powergamers are not necessarily obnoxious, but ruleslawyers are, IMHO) behaviour. So if you think it widened it, it's only because, despite all the recommendations of the rules, you continue to allow it. And this is by using a biased reading of the rules, you allow some and discard others.</blockquote>

Verification