Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7752471" data-attributes="member: 6873517">We have a few house rules (e.g., Counterspell and Dispel Magic are the same spell, crits do max damage plus dice) but for the most part we don't have them. It's more than I'd do myself---as you know I'm quite the tinkerer---but some of the folks I play with are wary of house rules. That doesn't mean DMs don't make rulings, but we tend to stick fairly closely to the way things are written in the book. Every group has its norms to keep peace at the table. IMO crassly gamist is something where the game mechanic is out front and center. It's a mechanic that may well work but it's only a mechanic and doesn't have any kind of integration with the fiction. IMO a clever but unintegrated mechanic shouldn't be how the game runs all the time, though of course all games will have some rules like this, e.g., spell slots and the action economy being two examples. I clearly I have a lower tolerance for this than you do so for me, insofar as it is possible, things that are crassly gamist should be used sparingly. I guess I never really encountered them put so boldly and baldly before 4E, so that's why I felt they were taken to an extreme. Of course you could run without them, but like much of 4E I felt they were an example of really putting the rules front and center. Given the sheer number of items in 4E, having the DM fish through the lists for something interesting to a player was a lot of work. So I understand the wish list, but feel that it's an example of the deleterious effect of too many fairly humdrum options. This is an area where I like some baseline, but not a ton. 3.X and 4E being an example of a ton. I don't mind it conceptually. I just feel that it's an example of a seriously missed opportunity where something that could have been flavorful and interesting was instead left crassly gamist (as I defined it above). They certainly can, though I do actually like a certain amount of make/buy. For instance, questing for magical ingredients can be a good source of side adventures so having some suggested systems helps the DM design such adventures. These are nice because they provide sources of adventures that aren't just "save the world" or pure form murder hoboing. They can be useful side treks, for instance.   Yeah, 4E definitely made magic items feel pretty humdrum. They walked that back a bit with some of the later ones being cooler, but for the most part I found them to be fairly boring. As inconsistent as it was, 1E assumed some item accumulation. For instance, monsters that required silver and eventually increasingly magical weapons to hit appeared as one leveled. But as I said, I don't think attunement itself is a bad idea. It's a decent idea that's poorly executed. Ditto concentration.</blockquote>

Verification