Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9464354" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I agree, but only in the sense that allowing &quot;half-baked gaps&quot; in the first place is a problem.If you're going to have rules, the rules should be good and well-tested. That is what is actually empowering to DMs. It is not what &quot;DM Empowerment&quot; has been loudly-and-proudly proclaimed to be for the last decade-plus. The boosters of &quot;Rulings not rules&quot; and &quot;DM Empowerment&quot; (particularly those who have nothing but venom for so-called &quot;player entitlement&quot;) have advocated for designers not caring that there are major If you're not going to have rules for something, then actually embrace that. Tell the DMs that. 4e did this. 13th Age did this. Dungeon World did this. Good, well-made games do this. 5e does not.Being perfectly honest, I don't understand what you're saying here--not on the detail level. I get that the overall point is that the design is both binary and sloppy, and this binary-and-sloppy pattern leads to problems. But given you have said that the details matter here, I'm pretty confident I'm just missing something because...I don't understand what phrases like &quot;defensive thicket&quot; and &quot;the yoyo&quot;.That said, from what I can glean, I agree with your points here. WotC messed up by making in-combat healing so difficult (something done in part because it was how 4e did things). They messed up by making it so death is either difficult to inflict, or so easily inflicted that it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish &quot;player made a foolish choice and suffered the consequences&quot;, &quot;it was always a crapshoot and you never really had any way of changing that&quot;, and &quot;GM played sillybuggers and now your character is dead.&quot;This isn't the text of the rules though, so I don't see how it is the rulebook shaming the DM. Instead, the issue is that, because the rules are binary and sloppily-made, the DM gets frustrated by using the default rules (because they don't really offer much challenge), but the players get frustrated because switching the binary midway through the game (IMO quite rightly) feels like &quot;I am altering the deal...pray I do not alter it any further.&quot; But, apart from that, I don't see how this is applicable because it is referring to 5e, when Micah was referring to Dungeon World. I still don't understand how DW is doing this, nor what portion of the text is doing it. DW plays with its cards face up. It makes very clear what the rules are for and why, and explains why changing them can have vast and sweeping negative effects on the game. If you don't like the rules, that simply means it's not the kind of game you should run, simple as. That's not &quot;shaming&quot; and calling it so is still something bizarre and confusing to me.See above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9464354, member: 6790260"] I agree, but only in the sense that allowing "half-baked gaps" in the first place is a problem. If you're going to have rules, the rules should be good and well-tested. That is what is actually empowering to DMs. It is not what "DM Empowerment" has been loudly-and-proudly proclaimed to be for the last decade-plus. The boosters of "Rulings not rules" and "DM Empowerment" (particularly those who have nothing but venom for so-called "player entitlement") have advocated for designers [I]not caring[/I] that there are major If you're not going to have rules for something, then actually embrace that. Tell the DMs that. 4e did this. 13th Age did this. Dungeon World did this. Good, well-made games do this. 5e does not. Being perfectly honest, I don't understand what you're saying here--not on the detail level. I get that the overall point is that the design is both binary and sloppy, and this binary-and-sloppy pattern leads to problems. But given you have said that the details matter here, I'm pretty confident I'm just missing something because...I don't understand what phrases like "defensive thicket" and "the yoyo". That said, from what I [I]can[/I] glean, I agree with your points here. WotC messed up by making in-combat healing so difficult (something done in part because it was how 4e did things). They messed up by making it so death is either difficult to inflict, or so easily inflicted that it is difficult or even impossible to distinguish "player made a foolish choice and suffered the consequences", "it was always a crapshoot and you never really had any way of changing that", and "GM played sillybuggers and now your character is dead." This isn't the text of the rules though, so I don't see how it is the rulebook shaming the DM. Instead, the issue is that, [I]because[/I] the rules are binary and sloppily-made, the DM gets frustrated by using the default rules (because they don't really offer much challenge), but the players get frustrated because switching the binary midway through the game (IMO quite rightly) feels like "I am altering the deal...pray I do not alter it any further." But, apart from that, I don't see how this is applicable because it is referring to 5e, when Micah was referring to Dungeon World. I still don't understand how DW is doing this, nor what portion of the text is doing it. DW plays with its cards face up. It makes very clear what the rules are for and why, and explains why changing them can have vast and sweeping negative effects on the game. If you don't like the rules, that simply means it's not the kind of game you should run, simple as. That's not "shaming" and calling it so is still something bizarre and confusing to me. See above. [/QUOTE]

Verification