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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6228842" data-attributes="member: 92511">Fair enough...as you say "for [you].""...the GM decides..." has always been a solution of D&D...as you state, "for [your] personal purposes" is not a concern of D&D...just as for my personal purposes is not a concern. But  and is a perfectly acceptable one. If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of systems where the GM is simply "the guy running the monsters/adversities/encounters" and has no province or authority to change what's happening in the game world. That is not...and I know this is inflammatory but I really see no other way to say it...D&D. It has always been part of the game...in my limited understanding of 4e, even 4e has, apparently, "page 42" [?].Because in D&D, quite simply, they do [the DM does].Yes...and no. The DM can adhere to "the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster." Maybe the party has more weapons or magic or whatever and the encounter is going badly, alternately, "the GM ignores that and/or gives the monster more hit points" is just as legitimate a way to play than "follow the rules." D&D has never been a "follow the rules to the letter." Even with the exactly endless rules of certain editions, it has not been this. Before an edition war breaks out about old school and whatever, 1e...ok?...1e I played for years and years...there are "rules" for weapons' reach...for initiative/weapon "speed"...never used them. Never saw them used in play. We played 1e...and then 2e...to the letter...but weapon reach/speed? Nope. Initiative took care of this. You go first or they go first. That was all. Were we playing "wrong"? I sincerely don't believe so...Everyone knew the "rules" everyone had a good time. That is all that matters...not "the rules say, the rules say, the rules say."See above...and enjoy! That is perfectly fine. That is your reference. No problem, eh? But do not say "this is what D&D should be!" It's not what D&D is. [I know, I know..."OneTueWayism"...but well, there it is.]No one says that it is.Thanks for, I suppose, making my point. That is Marvel Heroic...not D&D. No harm. No foul. Ok...lemme try... the DM has no limits...the players do. they can certainly try to think "outside the [rules] box"...and I would assert a "good" [subjective] DM will allow things as makes sense. Now, an <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />/dick/rat bastard DM can take advantage...on purpose!...But that is not necessarily a "good" [subjective] thing.Then...I...um...???AND, my final word here, is that that is the primordial difference in [the D&D game's] playstyles...or at least two very significant ones. One says that is "serving/improving/"bettering" and one says that is "subordinating/negating/destroying" the game. That makes the ideal of 5e, however appealing,  of "One game to rule them all" completely impossible.</blockquote>

Verification