Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libertad" data-source="post: 9875119" data-attributes="member: 6750502">I think that in 2006 to 2007 they were ahead of the curve on some issues, but didn't really commit to being wholly complete. It's very easy to criticize the shortcomings of a system, another thing entirely to build an alternative. That's probably why wholesale rules revisions such as FantasyCraft are so rare. Making a viable set of rules is a huge group effort requiring playtesters, production values, and a willingness to accept good-faith criticism and compromise of one's personal vision to better refine a product for general sale. Something the Tome authors were not so great at doing.This is my personal experience, but the bad actors would've found other ways to sabotage campaigns even if X-Cards weren't in use. I can understand why some groups would prefer a quick "flag" via a signal than outright discussion, which carries its own weaknesses, but I take it that it's more a subjective level of comfort.I think that "we need rules to curb the DM abusing their authority" already implies a lack of trust and adversarial stance, which is already starting off the group on the wrong foot. It's treating what should be a casual social hangout to something closer to a governmental organization where you have to create rules with the expectation that there are bad actors out there who are going to abuse the system. If you're thinking that way about friends and acquaintances you're coming together to sling dice and make Monty Python jokes, there's a deeper problem than what's in the game mechanics.True, but the Tomes don't really work at this as they don't really provide DM advice for rebalancing large parts of the game around their high-powered options and trivialization of resource management in 3.5. I don't know to what extent this is due to the Tomes being an ultimately unfinished product vs. a reflection of the Gaming Den's own biased views against the "tyranny of the DM," but I imagine it's more of the latter than the former based on my own experiences and observations of their community.They wouldn't consider these improvements quite simply due to the fact that a significant portion of the Gaming Den just likes to talk sh*t to talk sh*t. As you can see in Frank and K's Exalted "review," they aren't above grasping at the thinnest of straws to criticize a product. The whole "five people worked on this book" being described as a bad thing in and of itself is quite rich coming from someone who both worked as a freelancer for 2 Shadowrun products with far more employees, and for someone who has reviewed dozens of sourcebooks with larger writing teams. And while there are outliers, a significant portion of the Den support whatever Frank Trollman in particular espoused, including the notion that D&D 5e is actually a vaporware product.I think that may be because your own tastes are in the minority. I don't mean this as an insult, so much that the ethos espoused by the Gaming Den and like-minded people isn't really a sought out for playstyle. Either for people at the gaming table or as a customer base to which to cater. I understand that this can make it all the more frustrating when most gamers don't share your playstyle, so I sympathize with you on that front.I think that these kinds of situations are going to be inevitable no matter how detailed or simulationist the rules system is. Rules are better off done as an abstraction, and such scenarios are better off handled as ad hoc rulings given how rarely they will come up in most gaming groups. And in regards to digital games, I feel that this is one advantage video games have over tabletop: an immersive sim and physics engine is a workable goal for the former, but unrealistic for the latter.Thank you. I don't mind minor nitpicking as long as it's made in good faith.</blockquote>

Verification