Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8215372" data-attributes="member: 12731">Paid a bod yn dwp, my overall point is that you and Xoth aren't meeting our arguments head on. You provide a suggestion, we point out it does not accomplish what you say you want, you keep that suggestion anyway, perhaps adding a new different reason why, perhaps even shifting the goal. What I hoped for is "know what? you're right. Didn't think of it that way. Your arguments for cutting out that rule makes a lot of sense, thank you."When we suggest alternative solutions that actually does give the effect you say you want, you focus on shooting these down for various reasons rather than acknowledging that, yes, they are actually more effective in accomplishing the stated goal.It all makes constructive discussion very frustrating. For example: you said "We know changing major 5e rules assumptions like weapons damage output, and amount of hps is off the cards, so that’s at least a good way to help focus minds on any other future rule suggestions." But if every other approach is closed than the one you have already decided you like, why not simply say "my rules are not open for feedback, I won't change them no matter what you say"...?In the end, after all this discussion, the only argument I can see for keeping any of the massive, instant or random death rules remains "because I like it". This is what I find disappointing. Regards, Zapp</blockquote>