Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9070185" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think that the distinction you are highlighting is the same old issue people have when they discuss this- this is what is referred to in FKR circles as &quot;tactical infinity.&quot;On one side, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&amp;D) that the lack of specified options is what provides the freedom of more options. People argued against the introduction of the Thief class because once you gave specified abilities to one class, you were necessarily excluding those abilities from other classes (kind of the TTRPG equivalent of expressio unius est exclusio alterius). On the other hand, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&amp;D) that it is only by providing specified abilities that you can have a richness of play; without knowing what the end-result of a declaration is, you always end up in the world of DM adjudication.Usually, more colorful terms are used, but I'm sure you've seen this play out enough times to know what I'm talking about. Generally, it comes down to preferences in styles of play. Some people are more comfortable with one, some more comfortable with the other. Arguably, 5e tries to please both crowds, which means that it is often unsatisfying to people who are strong proponents of either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9070185, member: 7023840"] I think that the distinction you are highlighting is the same old issue people have when they discuss this- this is what is referred to in FKR circles as "tactical infinity." On one side, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that [I]the lack of specified options [/I]is what provides the freedom of more options. People argued against the introduction of the Thief class because once you gave specified abilities to one class, you were necessarily excluding those abilities from other classes (kind of the TTRPG equivalent of [I]expressio unius est exclusio alterius[/I]). On the other hand, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that it is only by providing specified abilities that you can have a richness of play; without knowing what the end-result of a declaration is, you always end up in the world of DM adjudication. Usually, more colorful terms are used, but I'm sure you've seen this play out enough times to know what I'm talking about. Generally, it comes down to preferences in styles of play. Some people are more comfortable with one, some more comfortable with the other. Arguably, 5e tries to please both crowds, which means that it is often unsatisfying to people who are strong proponents of either. [/QUOTE]

Verification