Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 9853493" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I don't think is quite accurate. 5E players min-max all the time by trying to shade play in the direction of their best skills and then it's up the GM to decide when and how to push back via penalties or outright denial. They also advantage fish pretty constantly. They don't need additional transparency to hunt for mechanical bonuses as the important mechanics are already player facing.You've missed the part of the Blades procedure where the player can decide to trade position of effect (or vice versa), perhaps contained in your use of 'clarify'. That's a really important mechanical moment in the system that proceeds a decision to try another action. You also mayb be underselling the extent to which even rough familiarity gives the players a very solid base on which to base expectations of what P/E will be as they know what the various specific factors are just like the GM does. I'm, not really arguing with you here as I am pointing out some additional decision points.I do think that the transparency (and mechanical nuance) is a very important element of FitD. It's certainly one of the main reasons I like the design so much.</blockquote>