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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8275406" data-attributes="member: 16814">Honestly, this sounds like he's playing two different games and just switching between them at various moments.  I thought about doing that once -- cobbling together a rough hack for social/exploration of some other games and then using 5e's combat mechanics during combat.  It's not terribly coherent.But, that said, what mechanics is he using from 7th Sea and which edition?  1e had little guidance, although I appreciate that system so much more now that I've had some broader experiences.  I'm not terribly familiar with 2e.No, I understand this.  This also assumes that people in general are good game designers and capable of making changes that work well.  Given the level of interaction on this board about houserules, it doesn't seem well indicated.  There are lots of asks to help fix problems that other houserules have caused that don't even understand that it was the first change that caused it -- they assume that there's something more to fix in 5e.  This is also assumes that people have the time and inclination to do this level of work.  Most people are leery of this in part because they understand that it's not easy and you can put in the work and still end up with a dissatisfying result.Usually, the argument that rules are just suggestions and can be ignored at any time is a shallow justification for doing so ad hoc and on a whim in a given person's game.  It's not a fundamental truth that needs saying, because everyone already knows this.  It's a claim to make the obvious sound profound.  And, it has a nasty little barb in it that if you don't do it yourself, it's a failing of you.But, overall, you can't design something if you don't fully understand it.  Or, at least, any success in this environment is accidental.  Granted, the satisfaction criteria are often loose enough that you can stumble into acceptable designs much more often that you can if you were building a car, but that just perpetrates the false tale that game design is easy. No, I've followed what you've actually said and stuck to that.  You've directly claimed a desire for fewer restrictions on the GM to make things up in the moment, to make ad hoc rulings, and to be less tightly bound by the rules.  This is a strong theme in all of your posts.  I'm not extrapolating anywhere past this.  If you didn't mean to convey this, then I'm really uncertain what you've been intending to convey with your posts.  What's telling is that you have the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding here and expound on what you do want, if it is different, but you've chosen to not do this but instead try to claim offense.Well, this is certainly an unexpected statement, and one I am genuinely surprised by because of what you said about WotC needing to not ignore outliers.  I'm uncertain of how to reconcile these two statements, but I'll go with this.  I'm not sure what your point in saying this, is, though.  I certainly haven't claimed that one game can account for every group's needs -- I've been strident that many games are, in fact, quite different and that different groups are quite different in what they want.  You've been pretty consistent in arguing that 5e can support just about anything though, and in arguing that there's little difference in system -- it's just flavor changes.  Again, I find it hard to reconcile your arguments in just the last few posts.</blockquote>

Verification