Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8270574" data-attributes="member: 16814">It doesn't provide the tools.&nbsp; Again, point out to me in the rulebook how I bribe a guard.&nbsp; The only answer is &quot;ask your GM.&quot;&nbsp; That's not a tool, it's an invitation to make a tool up.And this is fine!&nbsp; Jeez, I say this and it keeps being met with incredulity and hostility.&nbsp; This is the fundamental design goal of D&amp;D -- it's exactly why you keep claiming that you can just add stuff to D&amp;D to do whatever.&nbsp; The argument isn't that you can't, it's that the system doesn't help you do any of it -- that it's fundamentally thrown up it's hands and said that it's players are going to make it up on their own anyway, so why bother.&nbsp; I mean, they bothered in 3.x.&nbsp; They bothered to a different degree in 4e.&nbsp; They chose to go back to not bothering in 5e.&nbsp; This is a clear design choice, and not a bad one.&nbsp; Just one that means that 5e doesn't support a lot of things -- it just lets the GMs get on with it.The dirty side of this is that GM fallacy I mentioned -- that it's considered a failing of a GM to not successfully hack 5e, and the answer is usually a form of &quot;get gud.&quot;&nbsp; I mean, you saw that play out right here with [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER]'s low-magic issues and how [USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER] responded to it -- first by saying how easy it is, then by providing rather simplified advice for doing so as if it was just that easy.&nbsp; There wasn't a moment of, &quot;huh, yeah, I can see how that might be a challenge, maybe you are better off with a different system.&quot;&nbsp; Nope, 5e is the solution that needs to be defended, and failure to make 5e work is a failure of the user, not the system.&nbsp; Never the system.&nbsp; It's a weird sort of fetishization.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8270574, member: 16814"] It doesn't provide the tools. Again, point out to me in the rulebook how I bribe a guard. The only answer is "ask your GM." That's not a tool, it's an invitation to make a tool up. And this is fine! Jeez, I say this and it keeps being met with incredulity and hostility. This is the fundamental design goal of D&D -- it's exactly why you keep claiming that you can just add stuff to D&D to do whatever. The argument isn't that you can't, it's that the system doesn't help you do any of it -- that it's fundamentally thrown up it's hands and said that it's players are going to make it up on their own anyway, so why bother. I mean, they bothered in 3.x. They bothered to a different degree in 4e. They chose to go back to not bothering in 5e. This is a clear design choice, and not a bad one. Just one that means that 5e doesn't support a lot of things -- it just lets the GMs get on with it. The dirty side of this is that GM fallacy I mentioned -- that it's considered a failing of a GM to not successfully hack 5e, and the answer is usually a form of "get gud." I mean, you saw that play out right here with [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER]'s low-magic issues and how [USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER] responded to it -- first by saying how easy it is, then by providing rather simplified advice for doing so as if it was just that easy. There wasn't a moment of, "huh, yeah, I can see how that might be a challenge, maybe you are better off with a different system." Nope, 5e is the solution that needs to be defended, and failure to make 5e work is a failure of the user, not the system. Never the system. It's a weird sort of fetishization. [/QUOTE]

Verification