Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 3863647" data-attributes="member: 2205">Well, that's when I started playing.I agree that the very structure of 3e+ suggests that that is not the default paradigm anymore, but at least at my table it's still true.I agree that D&amp;D is not the optimal solution for my preferred playstyle.&nbsp; Despite that, there are a variety of reasons why I play it anyway, most important being that that's what my group prefers to play most of the time.&nbsp; I suspect (and have heard anecdotally) that that is true for a lot of people.Therefore, attempting to &quot;bend&quot; the system to better work with our paradigm is a desireable outcome.&nbsp; In fact, from a marketing perspective, making D&amp;D (or at least d20) more flexible and useful across a broader continuum of styles is a desireable feature.&nbsp; In fact, back in the early days of d20, such claims were made by the likes of Ryan Dancey and others IIRC.&nbsp; That d20 could be the last system you ever need.&nbsp; However, for that to be true, it can't be too rigid. The presence of rules doesn't imply that all must be used.&nbsp; Or used exactly as written.&nbsp; The whole premise of rule 0 predisposes this.&nbsp; And on a technicality, the presence of rule 0 means that all these varying interpretations are all equally &quot;correct&quot; and valid.Well, that's not wrong because it's wrong, it's wrong because you don't like it.Honestly, I wouldn't either, but I know gamers who wouldn't mind playing that way at all, and would in fact welcome such a loose interpretation of the rules.I can't agree, but mostly that's just because it's you.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> However, I think pushing examples out to their most absurd extremes to show that the concepts aren't sound doesn't always work.&nbsp; There's a big difference between cutting up your books and taking hits of laughing gas and calling that D&amp;D and using an ad hoc fumble mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 3863647, member: 2205"] Well, that's when I started playing. I agree that the very structure of 3e+ suggests that that is not the default paradigm anymore, but at least at my table it's still true. I agree that D&D is not the optimal solution for my preferred playstyle. Despite that, there are a variety of reasons why I play it anyway, most important being that that's what my group prefers to play most of the time. I suspect (and have heard anecdotally) that that is true for a lot of people. Therefore, attempting to "bend" the system to better work with our paradigm is a desireable outcome. In fact, from a marketing perspective, making D&D (or at least d20) more flexible and useful across a broader continuum of styles is a desireable feature. In fact, back in the early days of d20, such claims were made by the likes of Ryan Dancey and others IIRC. That d20 [i]could[/i] be the last system you ever need. However, for that to be true, it can't be too rigid. The presence of rules doesn't imply that all must be used. Or used exactly as written. The whole premise of rule 0 predisposes this. And on a technicality, the presence of rule 0 means that all these varying interpretations are all equally "correct" and valid. Well, that's not wrong because it's wrong, it's wrong because you don't like it. Honestly, I wouldn't either, but I know gamers who wouldn't mind playing that way at all, and would in fact welcome such a loose interpretation of the rules. I can't agree, but mostly that's just because it's you. :p However, I think pushing examples out to their most absurd extremes to show that the concepts aren't sound doesn't always work. There's a big difference between cutting up your books and taking hits of laughing gas and calling that D&D and using an ad hoc fumble mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification