Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7832048" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Uh.Then the GM can just say &quot;yes.&quot;&nbsp; Again, done.I think maybe the problem that you're citing is just plain intrinsic to 5e (due to design intent).&nbsp; Its a system (unlike tons of other modern systems) that places a GM in a HUGE role as mediator of action resolution.&nbsp; You're not getting around that.&nbsp; Its fundamental to the designed around play ethos. This isn't a Powered By the Apocalypse system where you're &quot;playing to find out&quot; and the ruleset is light, player-facing, codified, and with significant GM constraint.Its the absolute inverse (by design).So maybe you're saying &quot;its impossible to empower players of Fighter characters in the way you're talking about because the ruleset lacks 'GM constraint as a principle' that propels play?&quot;&nbsp; If so...&quot;ok?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7832048, member: 6696971"] Uh. Then the GM can just say "yes." Again, done. I think maybe the problem that you're citing is just plain intrinsic to 5e (due to design intent). Its a system (unlike tons of other modern systems) that places a GM in a HUGE role as mediator of action resolution. You're not getting around that. Its fundamental to the designed around play ethos. This isn't a Powered By the Apocalypse system where you're "playing to find out" and the ruleset is light, player-facing, codified, and with significant GM constraint. Its the absolute inverse (by design). So maybe you're saying "its impossible to empower players of Fighter characters in the way you're talking about because the ruleset lacks 'GM constraint as a principle' that propels play?" If so..."ok?" [/QUOTE]

Verification