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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5744256" data-attributes="member: 54877">There may very well be people playing BW substantially removed from the RAW, but if so, they are swimming against a heavy current in the BW community.  BW is very much played by RAW, and it is critical to a lot of its charm that it be so.  The GM is expected, within the limits of that RAW, to absolutely screw over the characters every chance he gets.  This is how the characters advance.  The only time the GM can really back off is when the players start actively playing up the character traits to such an extent that they are mucking up the characters' lives all by themselves.   If you introduce a new monsters in BW, by the RAW, then you write it up according to some extensive guidelines.  And then before it is used in a game, it is "peer reviewed" by at least some of the other players.  (And any player can so introduce--not merely the GM.)  The deliberate expectation is that meeting the new creature is not an "on no" surprise over capabilities, but rather "oh no, you brought that thing out!" Now I don't think D&D, being a gateway game, should try to parrot that exact technique.  I think D&D players, especially new ones, should have some of the wonder of exploration that comes from finding magic items and strange creatures and such.  It is part of the point of the game.  However, I do think that D&D would benefit greatly from explicit discussion of how the rules work and why they work they way they do.  Put it right there in the first PHB and DMG.  3E made a few nods in this direction, and 4E made a few more (mainly aided, however, by the more transparent model than explicit discussion).   Even people who decide not to house rule--including those mainly playing in short-term games--can benefit greatly from supporting design text explain how and why something is the way it is.  Plus, the resulting understanding is a benefit to those who house rule and those who would rather simply adjudicate on the fly.  Even people who disagree on the how and why (or implementation) can quickly see to the heart of what is annoying them.  This stuff is a lot more valuable than out of context spot rulings by "customer support" or any other such entity. <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" /></blockquote>

Verification