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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5870262" data-attributes="member: 59506">In general, adding is easier than subtracting. The reason being that removing a sub-mechanic that's hardwired throughout the rules likely has more effects throughout all the rules than just the specific sub-mechanic itself. Ignoring is not subtracting. Subtracting tends to be much more difficult, and ignoring only works in certain circumstances (not useful for all mechanics/sub-mechanics). Adding a mechanic however, means you likely already know the effects it may have on the greater game, and it's easier to tweak to accomodate (or, as with D&D Next add-on modules, hopefelly included advice on how to incorporate them). I know this isn't universally accepted, but the designers of D&D Next do accept this as one of their design premises, thus the idea of add-on modular designs rather than advice on how to remove or alter parts you don't like. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /> The point is that they can be described that way (and many, many, many more ways) and make sense (or they don't have to be explained at all, and still make sense), while surviving a 200' fall cannot be described in any realistic way...at least without the use of some dues ex machina, which gets pretty stale with continued use.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification