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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5748895" data-attributes="member: 58197">To me, this column is getting at something I feel no edition of D&D has really understood: DM judgement is both potent and finite. DM adjudication can bring a game world to life in a way no mere ruleset can do, but the DM only has so much time and mental energy, and everything the DM has to adjudicate reduces the player's ability to understand the game world.1E and 2E understood the potency of DM judgement, but not its finite-ness. They relied on the DM to adjudicate every tiny thing. This resulted in a game of great flexibility, but also put a huge load on the DM and made it hard for players to know what their characters could do.3E and 4E understood the finite-ness of DM judgement, but not its potency. They set out to lift the burden of constant adjudication, but ended up trying to eliminate any need for DM judgement at all.Monte seems to be moving toward recognizing both. The basic action economy of the game is something that should be codified in the rules; you do not want to make the DM adjudicate every single round! If your planned action is to run up to the enemy and whack it with your sword, the rules should tell you how many rounds that takes. Deciding how long it takes to flip over a table, grab a cocked crossbow from a dead guardsman, tie a flask of alchemist's fire to the end of the quarrel, and shoot it into the middle of the wall of fire the enemy pyromancer cast around himself... now that's a case for DM adjudication.</blockquote>

Verification