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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6550911" data-attributes="member: 58416">I'm not expecting manuals (or games) to be prescriptive.   They do offer a good baseline and a federal ballpark though.  I do agree that experience often teaches things outside of the basics;  I have access to both.  That doesn't take away from the merits of those basics though,  and a common underlying general ballpark does exist.  Even if we're talking a fantasy game with fantasy tactics, I personally believe that the basic principles still remain (or at least should remain) generally the same.  That doesn't require everyone to agree 100%.  What has a tendency to bug me is when I feel like a game rewards what I feel wouldn't make any kind of sense in any context outside of the game.  I completely understand that playability is a concern; I'm completely willing to make sacrifices to make a game more accessible and playable.   However,  I feel that sometimes a game can take things too far and cause encounter design and combat to play out in a way which is completely at odds with the general ballpark of what makes sense or the general ballpark of how I imagine the narrative/story.There are some aspects of D&D which are intimately tied to such things; the degree of that intimacy varies depending on edition.My previous post wasn't assuming medieval combat, but my opinion and preferences are still largely the same.The players aren't always aware of everything; even if some of those things are happening or being decided while they're present.</blockquote>

Verification