Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7169409" data-attributes="member: 6778044">In official rules? No need to assume. I couldn't care less what is or isn't included. They can change them all they want, that's never something I've objected to. The game is not designed, written or published for me. And as I've said before, I'm not only probably an outlier, but also not the audience they should be catering to if they want a mass market game.I might not like all of them, and I'll express my opinion and happily discuss why. If somebody is making a suggestion that I don't like, I'll voice my opinion on the proposed rule. I'll also try to offer suggestions as well.But the game is what WotC decides it is. I didn't care for the changes in 4e, and ended up playing it very, very little, but that's because my players didn't like it. I would have run it if that's what they wanted. Fortunately for me, since I didn't care for a lot of it, I didn't.If they like what you propose, then change away!I'm also going so far as to rewrite the rules as I'd like to see them (always evolving and learning - which is why I'm still interested in learning more of your techniques rather than philosophy), and I'll happily make my rules available, and even eventually on DMsGuild. Don't know if anybody else will like them or care.The published rules to me are a baseline. Whenever we discuss the game, playstyles, specific rules, etc. the RAW remain the baseline. The baseline also includes the history of the game in my opinion. Although this is its own set of rules, and plays a unique game from earlier editions, that history of design, intent, actual play, and related are still part of the game. Just like a new Star Wars movie has to deal with what's come before.Acknowledging and agreeing on the baseline makes it easier to discuss changes. And explaining why you want to make those changes helps a lot too. For example, the OP - [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has some complaints about the resting mechanic. He feels that "time constraints" and several other "solutions" that work very well for many, many other people to be unacceptable. He wants a solution that works for him. Fair enough.I disagree with his assessment of the problem, and I don't like some of the solutions offered, such as a different resting time-table for overland travel and dungeon exploration. I've offered some suggestions, and pointed out that Adventures in Middle Earth has an example pretty close to his different time-table suggestion. I've tried to come up with my own solutions, but with the way the game is structured, it is very difficult to come up with a solution regarding attrition and resting.Since I've never really had attrition as one of my daily goals, I really have no vested interest in the discussion other than I enjoy tweaking the rules, and it's interesting to see what others come up with, even if I don't like what they've come up with. It's quite possible a suggestion made in an effort to fix this perceived problem will still be valuable in my game.My approach separates attrition from hit points and short/long rest abilities. It's not a solution for everybody, but it does have the results that others seem to be looking for. It adds some complications, but uses existing 5e mechanics. It's really more about tracking the conditions. On the other hand, I've had a number of people say they would walk away from my table at session 0 if these are the rules I used.Hey, I think the game is much, much more than a single rule, but whatever.</blockquote>

Verification