Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8148918" data-attributes="member: 87792">Alternatively you, instead of being able to do what you know you should, need to read the DM's mind to see if something which one DM would reward will be rewarded or penalised by another DM. This leads to analysis paralysis and frustration on behalf of the player - and it leads to frustration and irritation on behalf of the DM who needs to ass-pull a new set of rulings each time the players come up with a set of wacky stunts. And for consistency a good DM will remember what they did last time.Even in D&amp;D 3.X you didn't actually need to flip through three separate books to adjudicate something like that, and both 4e and 5e are actively simpler. Meanwhile AD&amp;D is larded with rules (such as the helmet rules). You just don't know which set the DM is using.An actually fast game is something like Fate - which has a framework rather than relying on DM ass-pulls. That way, instead of having to ask the DM &quot;If I were to try this&quot; the player has a much clearer way of making the calling themselves and doesn't have to stop to ask the DM for a 30 second ruling which they then need to figure out and then figure out if it's something that their character would take the risk for - or something that there's a misunderstanding behind.Rulings slow things down every time they are needed while players can learn rules. Good game design isn't &quot;rulings, not rules&quot;, it structures using powerful rules and rulings just fill in the gaps; the idea you want &quot;rulings not rules&quot; is an excuse for shipping games that are not fit for purpose. (This is entirely independent of the big thing slowing 5e combat down - &quot;bullet sponge&quot; enemy design where an AD&amp;D ogre had 19hp and an 5e one has 59 by default).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8148918, member: 87792"] Alternatively you, instead of being able to do what you know you should, need to read the DM's mind to see if something which one DM would reward will be rewarded or penalised by another DM. This leads to analysis paralysis and frustration on behalf of the player - and it leads to frustration and irritation on behalf of the DM who needs to ass-pull a new set of rulings each time the players come up with a set of wacky stunts. And for consistency a good DM will remember what they did last time. Even in D&D 3.X you didn't actually need to flip through three separate books to adjudicate something like that, and both 4e and 5e are actively simpler. Meanwhile AD&D is larded with rules (such as the helmet rules). You just don't know which set the DM is using. An actually fast game is something like Fate - which has a framework rather than relying on DM ass-pulls. That way, instead of having to ask the DM "If I were to try this" the player has a much clearer way of making the calling themselves and doesn't have to stop to ask the DM for a 30 second ruling which they then need to figure out and then figure out if it's something that their character would take the risk for - or something that there's a misunderstanding behind. Rulings slow things down every time they are needed while players can learn rules. Good game design isn't "rulings, not rules", it structures using powerful rules and rulings just fill in the gaps; the idea you want "rulings not rules" is an excuse for shipping games that are not fit for purpose. (This is entirely independent of the big thing slowing 5e combat down - "bullet sponge" enemy design where an AD&D ogre had 19hp and an 5e one has 59 by default). [/QUOTE]

Verification