Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DaveDash" data-source="post: 6629608" data-attributes="member: 6786202">I've given it some more thought, and ultimately, I'm arguing on principle, not on practice.There's parts of 5e (in fact it's core design philosophy) that annoys me in principle. I'm not 'afraid' of thom, I just think it cheapens the experience. It certainly cheapens *my* experience, because I am after more of a game than a story/simulation. However, thinking about it logically, the way 5e is designed is a very good design for a TTRPG. In practice, we can all run the game we like and it hurts no one.Thinking about the Dragon/Force Cage issue, it does make a lot of sense that Dragons can't really fit in a force cage. 20ftx20ft Dragons are pretty small Dragons, and there really isn't anything wrong with this ruling or this way of thinking.In the game I run, the players love the battlemap and the tactical element of the game. I go to great lengths to create maps with interesting terrain and encourage metagaming tactical thinking at my table. It's much more of an advanced version of D&amp;D minis than the &quot;classic&quot; version of D&amp;D that many here play. It is a super dungeon though, so apart from combat, there's not really a lot else going on. For my next game running Princes though, I'll probably switch to the more classic version of D&amp;D, which many here ascribe to.We have three DMs, all who run different styles of games, so we can each get a fix for the different kind of games that each other runs (tactical, narrative, and in the middle). I rule in my game that the minis dictate spell effects, doesn't matter if the Dragon ends up being a cube in effect, that's just how it is. One of our other DM's rules the same, but the last DM wouldn't rule that way. Would I actually get into an argument with him about it? Thinking about it, probably not. Is it really a big deal? No, not really.So I take back my arguments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DaveDash, post: 6629608, member: 6786202"] I've given it some more thought, and ultimately, I'm arguing on principle, not on practice. There's parts of 5e (in fact it's core design philosophy) that annoys me in principle. I'm not 'afraid' of thom, I just think it cheapens the experience. It certainly cheapens *my* experience, because I am after more of a game than a story/simulation. However, thinking about it logically, the way 5e is designed is a very good design for a TTRPG. In practice, we can all run the game we like and it hurts no one. Thinking about the Dragon/Force Cage issue, it does make a lot of sense that Dragons can't really fit in a force cage. 20ftx20ft Dragons are pretty small Dragons, and there really isn't anything wrong with this ruling or this way of thinking. In the game I run, the players love the battlemap and the tactical element of the game. I go to great lengths to create maps with interesting terrain and encourage metagaming tactical thinking at my table. It's much more of an advanced version of D&D minis than the "classic" version of D&D that many here play. It is a super dungeon though, so apart from combat, there's not really a lot else going on. For my next game running Princes though, I'll probably switch to the more classic version of D&D, which many here ascribe to. We have three DMs, all who run different styles of games, so we can each get a fix for the different kind of games that each other runs (tactical, narrative, and in the middle). I rule in my game that the minis dictate spell effects, doesn't matter if the Dragon ends up being a cube in effect, that's just how it is. One of our other DM's rules the same, but the last DM wouldn't rule that way. Would I actually get into an argument with him about it? Thinking about it, probably not. Is it really a big deal? No, not really. So I take back my arguments. [/QUOTE]

Verification