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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5749203" data-attributes="member: 4892">Must spread XP. Excellent point.Although I slightly disagree by edition because of another great point you make:3E fireball includes rules for setting things on fire and melting soft metals. 4E fireball has no such rules, but instead has the following flavor text: ""I'd say it leaves more up to the DM to determine what happens in his game. I don't think the books do enough to guide the DM into making these decisions, but ht eframework is there.I can agree with you up to here (minus the "machine operator").But here I disagree. I started solely within the "tabletop generation" but as technology became available I was also part of the "videogame generation." I never once, during any video game, felt like I was fighting against the machine. And I never got that sense from any other videogamers over the years.I did get that adversarial sense from the early table-top games I played. I believe the adversarial relationship in those games came from a combination of differing viewpoints when the rules left the GM to adjudicate mixed with maturity level over how those differing viewpoints were shared and resolved. For me 1E AD&D was extremely adversarial, but I think looking through today's lens it would have been much less so. Older posters (looking at you old man [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) who I've spoken with personally have confirmed this viewpoint IMO because they did not encounter the same issues I did because they were at a different maturity level when they encountered them.I can agree with this, although I think it already exists. I think they could do a better job explaining this to everyone and I think these articles are a start at attempting to explain just that, not just a look forward to 5E as some speculate.Must spread XP.He also said "Why not give the DM the power (and guidelines) to adjudicate actions on a turn, and let the game system handle attack rolls?"Which is where some could be worried over the direction he's taking. If the guidelines look much like the common actions listed in the current rules, then so be it. Although I don't understand the need to call this out in an article. If the guidelines are more akin to the "guidelines" provided in the 1E DMG for Magic Item Creation (for example) then I would be much less happy with the direction he is taking.I think he is too, I just hope we're not both wrong.</blockquote>

Verification