Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8315314" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Out of the box? Depends on your system preferences, but probably not for most groups. I’d rather do intrigue in an open ended skill system where action and reaction aren’t prescribed than in a system prescribed by “if, then” mechanics. What’s this got to do with comparative flexibility, though?&nbsp; &nbsp;But certainly 5e can do it, and I wouldn’t consider it a big deal to add intrigue rules depending on what I wanted out of it.&nbsp; &nbsp;Right, there are rules, but less or more depending on what part of the game you’re dealing with. The sweet spot for me is between 5e combat and 5e skill stuff, but both are close enough. Combat needs more design oriented toward getting players to improvise and just think of things to do and try to do it, but D&amp;D is what it is. As long as your “can be”s are oriented toward different players and groups having different preferences, expectations, and…natures in terms of what inspires and what restricts, sure.&nbsp; &nbsp;Somewhat funny to me, is that on one hand, I’m being told (not by you, to be fair) that D&amp;D is a highly narrowly focused game, and on the other hand that it is too loose and that restricts creativity.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;At the same time, I’m being told that culture of play and social expectation are basically rules, but then also told that the task resolution system of 5e has no definition, as if culture of play and social expectations don’t help define the shared understanding of what will and won’t work, what methods will be used to determine outcomes, etc. Same thing. No (good) game is going to allow literally anything. You can’t randomly decide to fly in any game that doesn’t assume dream logic or something similar, for instance. Okay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8315314, member: 6704184"] Out of the box? Depends on your system preferences, but probably not for most groups. I’d rather do intrigue in an open ended skill system where action and reaction aren’t prescribed than in a system prescribed by “if, then” mechanics. What’s this got to do with comparative flexibility, though? But certainly 5e can do it, and I wouldn’t consider it a big deal to add intrigue rules depending on what I wanted out of it. Right, there are rules, but less or more depending on what part of the game you’re dealing with. The sweet spot for me is between 5e combat and 5e skill stuff, but both are close enough. Combat needs more design oriented toward getting players to improvise and just think of things to do and try to do it, but D&D is what it is. As long as your “can be”s are oriented toward different players and groups having different preferences, expectations, and…natures in terms of what inspires and what restricts, sure. Somewhat funny to me, is that on one hand, I’m being told (not by you, to be fair) that D&D is a highly narrowly focused game, and on the other hand that it is too loose and that restricts creativity. At the same time, I’m being told that culture of play and social expectation are basically rules, but then also told that the task resolution system of 5e has no definition, as if culture of play and social expectations don’t help define the shared understanding of what will and won’t work, what methods will be used to determine outcomes, etc. Same thing. No (good) game is going to allow literally anything. You can’t randomly decide to fly in any game that doesn’t assume dream logic or something similar, for instance. Okay. [/QUOTE]

Verification