Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8257718" data-attributes="member: 18">Problem is that that very concept goes directly against the approach discussed in early 5E SA and against the whole &quot;rulings not rules&quot; notion that 5E was supposedly designed to support. Also, I don't see any evidence of &quot;charting a middle course&quot;, at all. I see only literalistic, lawyerly interpretations of 5E's rules, which don't represent a &quot;middle course&quot; but an entirely different approach.Define &quot;care&quot;.I don't think it's a priority for him when he's running/playing stuff, based on comments he's made, but I think it is when he's designing stuff and his lawyerly interpretations tend to skew towards minimizing the power of things.99.5% or thereabouts of what he says in SA won't be errata ever. Maybe even higher. So &quot;yet&quot; is really odd in that context.I can't really speak for anyone else, but it's interesting to see how the reputation of SA declined on the 5E reddit over the years. When it started, people were constantly doing exactly what [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] warns us against here - treating his rulings as RAW/RAI - and more importantly close to the word of law. But there's been a steady decline in how seriously people take them, which sped up after he stopped really explaining them and got increasingly rules lawyer-ish, to the point where any mention of SA is now immediately met with &quot;it's just a suggestion, not a rule&quot; or the like and people discussing alternative takes which make work better.Personally, his lawyerly opinion as to how a rule works carries relatively little weight, because I've been playing RPGs for 30+ years, and I've seen designers get stuff &quot;wrong&quot; about their own games countless times, especially when they get into the weeds on rules. However, I was always very interested when he explained why they made rules certain ways, what the goal was, and so on, and still am. If you want to convince me to use a certain odd or silly-seeming rule a specific way, just explain why it should work that way from a design perspective. But if all you do is explain how you believe a rule works, why would I care? Your game literally told me not to care!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8257718, member: 18"] Problem is that that very concept goes directly against the approach discussed in early 5E SA and against the whole "rulings not rules" notion that 5E was supposedly designed to support. Also, I don't see any evidence of "charting a middle course", at all. I see only literalistic, lawyerly interpretations of 5E's rules, which don't represent a "middle course" but an entirely different approach. Define "care". I don't think it's a priority for him when he's running/playing stuff, based on comments he's made, but I think it is when he's designing stuff and his lawyerly interpretations tend to skew towards minimizing the power of things. 99.5% or thereabouts of what he says in SA won't be errata ever. Maybe even higher. So "yet" is really odd in that context. I can't really speak for anyone else, but it's interesting to see how the reputation of SA declined on the 5E reddit over the years. When it started, people were constantly doing exactly what [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] warns us against here - treating his rulings as RAW/RAI - and more importantly close to the word of law. But there's been a steady decline in how seriously people take them, which sped up after he stopped really explaining them and got increasingly rules lawyer-ish, to the point where any mention of SA is now immediately met with "it's just a suggestion, not a rule" or the like and people discussing alternative takes which make work better. Personally, his lawyerly opinion as to how a rule works carries relatively little weight, because I've been playing RPGs for 30+ years, and I've seen designers get stuff "wrong" about their own games countless times, especially when they get into the weeds on rules. However, I was always very interested when he explained why they made rules certain ways, what the goal was, and so on, and still am. If you want to convince me to use a certain odd or silly-seeming rule a specific way, just explain why it should work that way from a design perspective. But if all you do is explain how you believe a rule works, why would I care? Your game literally told me not to care! [/QUOTE]

Verification