Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8993511" data-attributes="member: 6801845">The core books can, and should, do a better job. I've suggested before that the PHB should walk through part of a combat (or even other scenarios) from the player's perspective and the DMG should cover the same scenario from the DM's perspective.&nbsp; Maybe even have a section in the MM talking about how the scenario would play out differently with a different enemy with different abilities and demeanor had been chosen.But just because the rules could be improved doesn't mean they don't exist.&nbsp; They're too scattered and probably not explicit enough,&nbsp; but they do exist.&nbsp; Saying you &quot;have to invent the game&quot; is simply hyperbole.While I can't speak to a newbies experience of 5E, the proof is in the pudding so to speak.&nbsp; Millions of people have started playing the game.&nbsp; If it was such a dumpster fire of horrible rules, that would not have happened.&nbsp; I started playing D&amp;D in the dark ages of the game, with Gygaxian prose that had conflicting rules everywhere.&nbsp; Yet we still managed to figure it out.&nbsp; The current rules are such a vast improvement over what we started with back in they day it's a night and day difference.Having the options to have different styles and play the game slightly differently is core to D&amp;D's success.&nbsp; The fact that we have optional rules, that the book acknowledges that not everyone needs to or wants to play the game exactly the same way is awesome!&nbsp; If you want exactly the same experience as everyone else, play a board or video game.&nbsp; I don't want to have the game as locked down on the rules as Monopoly. As far as some of the other stuff such as not making it clear the purpose of making checks ... that's simply not true.&nbsp; It talks about different styles and whether or not you want to use dice to resolve uncertainty.&nbsp; It talks about when you can use multiple checks, contests, success and failure but also success at a cost, degrees of failure and so on.&nbsp; Just because they don't prescribe one true way and instead encourage you to make the game your own doesn't mean the information isn't there.This level of flexibility may not be your preference.&nbsp; But saying the guidance doesn't exist is untrue.&nbsp; It just doesn't try to implement board game levels of specificity to the rules.&nbsp; Thank goodness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8993511, member: 6801845"] The core books can, and should, do a better job. I've suggested before that the PHB should walk through part of a combat (or even other scenarios) from the player's perspective and the DMG should cover the same scenario from the DM's perspective. Maybe even have a section in the MM talking about how the scenario would play out differently with a different enemy with different abilities and demeanor had been chosen. But just because the rules could be improved doesn't mean they don't exist. They're too scattered and probably not explicit enough, but they do exist. Saying you "have to invent the game" is simply hyperbole. While I can't speak to a newbies experience of 5E, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Millions of people have started playing the game. If it was such a dumpster fire of horrible rules, that would not have happened. I started playing D&D in the dark ages of the game, with Gygaxian prose that had conflicting rules everywhere. Yet we still managed to figure it out. The current rules are such a vast improvement over what we started with back in they day it's a night and day difference. Having the options to have different styles and play the game slightly differently is core to D&D's success. The fact that we have optional rules, that the book acknowledges that not everyone needs to or wants to play the game exactly the same way is awesome! If you want exactly the same experience as everyone else, play a board or video game. I [I]don't want [/I]to have the game as locked down on the rules as Monopoly. As far as some of the other stuff such as not making it clear the purpose of making checks ... that's simply not true. It talks about different styles and whether or not you want to use dice to resolve uncertainty. It talks about when you can use multiple checks, contests, success and failure but also success at a cost, degrees of failure and so on. Just because they don't prescribe one true way and instead encourage you to make the game your own doesn't mean the information isn't there. This level of flexibility may not be your preference. But saying the guidance doesn't exist is untrue. It just doesn't try to implement board game levels of specificity to the rules. Thank goodness. [/QUOTE]

Verification