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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="francisca" data-source="post: 1580058" data-attributes="member: 9734">Mr. Mearls, had you read any of my other posts, you would *never* had associated common sense with me.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I guess I can see you point, I too have seen alot of Brian Van Hooses* in my life, and it was pretty cheap of me to pick on one example.  However,  you can't possibly provide rules for everything.  Where do you draw the line?  Also, at some point, a DM is going to have to set a DC for some check which isn't provided in the DMG.  Isn't that arbitrary and ad-hoc?  The point I'm driving toward is that somewhere, the DM has to make a call.   And the first time won't be the last.  You can try to codify and assign values to every aspect of the game, but at some point, the downside of having so much information will get in the way of playability.  To me, 3E passed that point, but it isn't so far past that I don't play it.  Hell, I like it, despite all my graoning.However, if Mr. Dancey has research which points to 3E being what most gamers wanted, I'm satisfied that the 3E designers at least made an effort to meet those desires.  Of course, it begs the question: does this preference for more rules , especially in light of Mage Knight and D&D minatures game, change over time?*For those of you who don't read Knights of the Dinner Table (ok, that one guy), Brian is the consumate rules lawyer, knowing the rules down to the page, column, paragraph, and sentence.</blockquote>

Verification