Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9591190" data-attributes="member: 7035894">Same. I don't need a lot of unnecessary complexity from my stormtroopers. They're mostly just there to be an obstacle, and if the story changes such that one of them becomes more important, I can adjust on the fly. Please don't make the description more complicated than it has to be, and certainly don't give them anything approaching the complexity of a character sheet. If I need a particular stormtrooper to stand out, I can do that. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.That's basically the entire design philosophy of 5e: give the DM enough to work with, and trust them to fill in the details to the extent they desire. It's built assuming a significant level of trust and cooperation at the table, and that has obviously worked very well for it. I think that is one of the main ways that it hearkens back to 1e.If a player at my table demanded to know why the guard captain rolls 2d10 for their longsword, my response will be &quot;because of their training an experience, just like your berserker adds 2d6 to their damage roll once per round.&quot; If the player isn't satisfied with that, then that's their problem; I ain't dwelling on it. But, to be honest, not one player has ever asked me a question like that, because they are too busy being into the game. A lot of these comments seem to come from folks who either play at much more adversarial tables, or like hypotheticals involving very adversarial tables. I might enjoy these discussions on a forum, but I'm never going to be part of an adversarial table, so mostly these sorts of debates feel like arguing about how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9591190, member: 7035894"] Same. I don't need a lot of unnecessary complexity from my stormtroopers. They're mostly just there to be an obstacle, and if the story changes such that one of them becomes more important, I can adjust on the fly. Please don't make the description more complicated than it has to be, and certainly don't give them anything approaching the complexity of a character sheet. If I need a particular stormtrooper to stand out, I can do that. Super easy, barely an inconvenience. That's basically the entire design philosophy of 5e: give the DM enough to work with, and trust them to fill in the details [I]to the extent they desire[/I]. It's built assuming a significant level of trust and cooperation at the table, and that has obviously worked very well for it. I think that is one of the main ways that it hearkens back to 1e. If a player at my table demanded to know why the guard captain rolls 2d10 for their longsword, my response will be "because of their training an experience, just like your berserker adds 2d6 to their damage roll once per round." If the player isn't satisfied with that, then that's their problem; I ain't dwelling on it. But, to be honest, not one player has ever asked me a question like that, because they are too busy being into the game. A lot of these comments seem to come from folks who either play at much more adversarial tables, or like hypotheticals involving very adversarial tables. I might enjoy these discussions on a forum, but I'm never going to be part of an adversarial table, so mostly these sorts of debates feel like arguing about how many angels can fit on the end of a pin. [/QUOTE]

Verification