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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8241437" data-attributes="member: 7023840">And I'd push back on that, and say that this distinction makes no sense. Allow me to illustrate:A: "One thing I don't like about {insert game here} is that because everything is governed by abilities, I feel like I'm just looking for buttons to push."B: "Oh, that's not correct. See, you as a player can do anything. Only your character is limited by the fact that you have to have an ability to do something!"A: "Uh ......"I understand your point vis-a-vis authority. That's a trivially simple one that anyone can illustrate:Rule A: If you hit, you do damage to the target. Rule B: If you hit, you do d6 damage.Rule A (until the parameters have been determined) does not provide clarity to the player; how much damage? What effects? What, exactly, can their character do?Rule B is clear. There will always be some interpretation, or Rule 0, but the player knows that if they mash Button B (Rule B) and hit, they will do d6 damage, and the DM will acknowledge this.HOWEVER, the player who relies on mashing B will only mash B. Will they try to do the damage of a disarm? Will they aim a blow for the head to know the enemy unconscious? Will they try and bash the target over the cliff? You quickly lose the ... Arneson-ian freedom of play (even if it is negotiated) in favor of a constrained certainty. "I do d6 damage, and nothing else. I can't open that lock, because I'm not a thief. I cannot create a new spell because there isn't a rule for it. Etc."</blockquote>

Verification