NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6977617" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Yesterday I was going to reply to the latest posts, but figured I wasn't in much of a great mood and would probably say some rather harsh/richard'ish things...so I didn't.Today, after a decent nights sleep (only woke up about 4 times! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ...pretty dang good for me, it's usually every hour). Anyway, I read some of the latest, latest posts. I think I've come to a conclusion: 5e is a pretty damn well written RPG. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Let me 'splain...I think the amount of 'rules' and the amount of 'explanations' that are given in all the three core books is really really close to the "sweet spot". At least for me and at least a few others (I suspect, most, actually). If you look back at the first 'major revision' of D&D (I'm talking about the Frank Mentzer 'Red Box' Basic D&D set put out in 1983), it had the same sort of writing amount. It gave enough information that a DM could easily grasp it, but it didn't give too much information that a DM was constantly referring to the books to make sure he was doing everything right.And here we have 5e. This thread is a perfect example of why this writing 'style', if we can call it that, is a GREAT thing. You have one person saying A, then you have someone saying B, and another saying C. The funny thing is...each person is correct. The fact that people are still arguing/debating/commenting on this proves that. If it was as, er, "easy" as pointing to the book and saying "Here: Section 14, Heading "Short Distances", subsection 7, subparagraph 3, points 14.7.3.1a through 14.7.3.1d shows exactly what she will do", then we would only have arguments from people who do it differently...but those peoples arguments would be "wrong" in the course of RAW; they could still do it, but the rules wouldn't support them. Luckily for us, 5e isn't written like that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't know about you guys, but I'm grateful that the WotC crew decided to go the whole "Lets give the DM more control, and lets makes sure we stick to 'Less is More' as a general principle" (thats my interpretation of how the rules probably ended up as they are now).So, to all you arguing that "The designers aren't doing their jobs": Yes, they are. It's just that your idea of what and how they should have designed it is different.  And to all you arguing that "The designers did their jobs" : No, they didn't. It's just that there are people out there who want/need more specifics to feel comfortable.That leaves us all in a perfect situation. If we take both "sides" of the argument we can look at what the 5e rules actually are, and what they actually have in them (in regards to the amount of information on any given subject), we can see that WotC was the "moderator" of both camps of thought. On one hand, the "We need specifics because that's what we are paying for" and the "We need it fast and loose with minimal rules because that's what makes a great RPG"...and what we have are 5e rules that "Are specific enough to run D&D, but not so specific as to tie the hands of a DM". In writing the rules this way, WotC has ended up a winner. Why? Well, as any negotiator will tell you, when both parties compromise and walk away unhappy...you've made a good deal. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification