Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7545926" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I'm not sure where to start here. What are you even arguing against? What point does your cooking reference even make? Did you read my reply to Max? Of course it matters. For people who have multiple groups for which they DM. It's 100% reasonable to not want to track a whole set of houserules for every group/game. I don't care who you do or don't have sympathy for. I've little respect for arguments that include "I don't have a lot of sympathy for this strawman version of perfectly normal, reasonable people, that I've concocted". Most groups I know have multiple games, each of which has a different roster of players, with some overlap. What's more, character makeup and campaign style can vary so widely that the same group can run into problems with a houserule that they didn't think about beyond the specific set of features in a specific game. You're comfortable changing the rule again when that happens, good for you. There's no reason for groups that aren't to give a damn, and there's nothing unreasonable about someone hoping for options designed, iterated, and playtested by the design team to address common issues people have with how the game runs, or to change some of the assumptions of the game without major problems down the line, etc. Also, not everyone is that confident, or wants to work out different houserules for each of their games/groups, or just plain doesn't like using untested houserules, which any homebrewed houserule inherently is until you've been using it for weeks or months. Those groups and DMs aren't wrong, they're just different from some others. I have no problem making houserules on my own. I'm very confident in my understanding of the system, my relative lack of any CharOp or anti-CharOp bias in regards to how the game is balanced, and my ability to adjust on the fly if I find a surprise bug. My best friend who has been running games for over a decade longer than I have will only ever use a houserule if there is a glaring problem, and there is no fix from the makers of the game in sight. Even then, he'd rather make one based on what the designers think about the problem and how to treat it. It's a preference. Here's the thing. He is, absolutely, better at DMing than I am. I'm pretty good. He's very, very good. He understands 5e just as well as I do, provides keen insights to help me with my houserules and homebrew, and trusts my judgement on those that stuff we make together is just under official stuff in his hierarchy of allowed material. But he simply likes to play by the book. FOr him, if we aren't using the system as intended, why aren't we just playing GURPS? (no accounting for taste)The thread is about a hypothetical Unearthed Arcana article. Even if it was about a hypothetical book, we get at least 1 book with new player options each year, and have thousands of options. It's not a big deal if one of those books some year doesn't interest you. It also isn't likely that any one concept put forth for a book would ever be the only thing in a 5e "new options" book, because that isn't how they're running things this time. Instead, it would be part of the DM section of a book with new stuff for DMs and players, targeting multiple niches. It's...objectively not a big deal if one part of one book isn't interesting to you, or me, or whoever.</blockquote>

Verification