Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8694896" data-attributes="member: 93670">Actually I think it speaks to a failing of 5e when viewed in the history of d&amp;d.&nbsp; The question it was in response to was why wotc made a particular errata.&nbsp; Back in past editions like 1st 2nd&amp; 3.x there was significant page space devoted to how things work &amp; why stuff is the way it is.&nbsp; In those editions we could look at relevant sections to intuit how a particular errata makes&nbsp; an area of the rules align better with intent but we can not do the same in 5e because that sort of insight into how &amp; why is largely absent.&nbsp; There's no way to know why wotc made one particular 5e errata addition any more than there is to know if a secondary bit of the rules is interacting with it as intended with (un)desirable results or not.Edit: Absent that insight or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing" target="_blank">tighter wording</a> of the rules themselves we wind up with this hostile to GM situation where the rules are vague with the expressed goal of making it easy for the gm to make changes to a ruleset that has a rules light player facing presentation but explicit enough so that almost any change&nbsp; the gm makes is guaranteed to generate accusations of bad rulings while relying on the GM to provide life support for that illusory one sided rules light presentation should a player not like it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8694896, member: 93670"] Actually I think it speaks to a failing of 5e when viewed in the history of d&d. The question it was in response to was why wotc made a particular errata. Back in past editions like 1st 2nd& 3.x there was significant page space devoted to how things work & why stuff is the way it is. In those editions we could look at relevant sections to intuit how a particular errata makes an area of the rules align better with intent but we can not do the same in 5e because that sort of insight into how & why is largely absent. There's no way to know why wotc made one particular 5e errata addition any more than there is to know if a secondary bit of the rules is interacting with it as intended with (un)desirable results or not. Edit: Absent that insight or [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing']tighter wording[/URL] of the rules themselves we wind up with this hostile to GM situation where the rules are vague with the expressed goal of making it easy for the gm to make changes to a ruleset that has a rules light player facing presentation but explicit enough so that almost any change the gm makes is guaranteed to generate accusations of bad rulings while relying on the GM to provide life support for that illusory one sided rules light presentation should a player not like it. [/QUOTE]

Verification