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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8749332" data-attributes="member: 59082">Well let's not forget the obvious: That's a movie, while D&D is a game - and one that is far more magical and superheroic than LotR. So I wouldn't consider it "awesome aversion" to dislike it within the context of LotR, especially to the degree that it conflicts with the tone and vibe of Tolkien's vision, and the style of fantasy he employed - which wasn't superheroic or high magic. I mean, it would sort of be like if Gandalf cast meteor swarm.I'm guessing that the vast majority of people engaging in this conversation are in the same boat - mostly GMs.The paragraphs before this outlined what I interpreted to be your own personal background and subjective taste, which is entirely valid and serves to explain why you like things the way you like them. But then you lose me on this. I don't think the two are at all the same, at least in my experience and, I think, for those who are comfortable with rulings.I see what you're talking about as less about some kind of objective value and almost entirely a matter of taste and play-style preference. Perhaps a more apt analogy is that of a published campaign setting that is only lightly outlined. Some want tons of detail, while others like big gaps to fill in. This, I think, is a lot closer to "rulings vs rules," because it simply relates to different styles and preferences and makes no remark on what is or is not "objectively bad."So when you say a system that relies heavily on rulings is "objectively bad," you're saying that lots of people like systems that are objectively bad - which of course then means that either those people have bad taste (and also implies that taste is mostly objectively measurable), or that it isn't an objective matter at all, because it isn't bad for the many who embrace rulings. I tend to think that the latter is a better approach to take, because it doesn't reduce such differences to those who have good vs. bad taste.Well I don't think anyone is advocating for "arbitrary rulings," because that implies a lack of any kind of consistency or logic. I think most DMs, or at least reasonably proficient ones, develop a style and follow a certain logic. Players learn the style and logic of the GM, and dialogue/negotiate with it. I think that's just a natural part of the game, and not dissimilar to students learning the individual proclivities of a teacher. Where it becomes problematic is if the teacher (or GM) isn't consistent or fair, which inevitably happens at times - it is just part of the nature of the beast. But it really depends on the teacher (or GM), and varies by degree. A good GM (or teacher) cultivates self-awareness and tries to be as fair and consistent as possible, but will inevitable miss the mark at times.A clear and strong ruleset can ameliorate some of this - as some have been advocating for - but there's always going to be a gap, especially in a relatively free-wheeling "rulings paradigm" game like 5E. But as I said in the other thread, I don't think the best or only way to solve the problem of human inconsistency is inherently or only through replacing it with mechanical systems....that way lies dystopia. Good and clear rules, yes, but we also need to work on developing our own capacity for consistency, logic, and dialogue. Meaning, some of these human "problems" can only be addressed on the human level.So I'm saying both: a good ruleset that develops/evolves over time (through editions and rules updates) and developing the craft of good GMing (and good playing!).What I said wasn't about age, but the paradigm of the game that a person grew up in - and I actually posited that the youngest cohort of all--people who learned D&D via 5E--might be more comfortable with rulings than 3E/4E folks.Again, just one factor. I think a larger factor is personality type - the Alan Watts prickles vs. goo thing from my first post in this thread.</blockquote>

Verification