Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8276101" data-attributes="member: 5142">As I said before, simply establishing that any game can work for setting or genre play is a bit of a banal claim. It's mainly changing the shade of lipstick and dresses that your pet pig is wearing.I also think that this tends to involve communities invested in their pet games or systems. Some in the Fate community claim that Fate can do anything, but then you also have people like Rob Donoghue, one of the creators of Fate, saying &quot;Umm...no it can't. Please stop saying this.&quot; Or you have people using the Cypher System who claim that it can do everything. I got chewed out for even asking fans what they thought the limitations of the Cypher System were. Nearly anything that wasn't &quot;there are none&quot; were unacceptable answers.Necessary? I don't know. Necessity is a bit too strong a phrasing. Again, YMMV, but it does feel somewhat unsatisfactory and kinda just there. I'm not sure if it has been playtested either. I don't recall Madness/Sanity rules in the D&amp;D Next playtest. It only pops up three times in Curse of Strahd: two of which are about deciding what form of madness NPCs have. Do you use or have you used these Madness and Sanity rules? It's admittedly an informal sense, but I don't hear about people here and elsewhere talking about 5e really engaging these rules ever. Feats, spells, and things get engaged in discussion constantly. Madness? Not so much. Silence is sometimes more damning than controversy. It means people generally don't even care enough about it to engage or talk about it. The latest ENWorld thread with &quot;madness&quot; in the title about the madness rules in 5E was from 2014. Searching for &quot;madness rules,&quot; I've found only a handful of people who say they have used it. There is a short thread last year about the Sanity stat; it was pretty disparaging of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8276101, member: 5142"] As I said before, simply establishing that any game can work for setting or genre play is a bit of a banal claim. It's mainly changing the shade of lipstick and dresses that your pet pig is wearing. I also think that this tends to involve communities invested in their pet games or systems. Some in the Fate community claim that Fate can do anything, but then you also have people like Rob Donoghue, one of the creators of Fate, saying "Umm...no it can't. Please stop saying this." Or you have people using the Cypher System who claim that it can do everything. I got chewed out for even asking fans what they thought the limitations of the Cypher System were. Nearly anything that wasn't "there are none" were unacceptable answers. Necessary? I don't know. Necessity is a bit too strong a phrasing. Again, YMMV, but it does feel somewhat unsatisfactory and kinda just there. I'm not sure if it has been playtested either. I don't recall Madness/Sanity rules in the D&D Next playtest. It only pops up three times in Curse of Strahd: two of which are about deciding what form of madness NPCs have. Do you use or have you used these Madness and Sanity rules? It's admittedly an informal sense, but I don't hear about people here and elsewhere talking about 5e really engaging these rules ever. Feats, spells, and things get engaged in discussion constantly. Madness? Not so much. Silence is sometimes more damning than controversy. It means people generally don't even care enough about it to engage or talk about it. The latest ENWorld thread with "madness" in the title about the madness rules in 5E was from 2014. Searching for "madness rules," I've found only a handful of people who say they have used it. There is a short thread last year about the Sanity stat; it was pretty disparaging of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification