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: 7169621" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Really? You (DM Light) are not OK with tweaking it to suit your preferences? That would lead me to believe you play it RAW, without variant rules and house rules. Like Adventurer's League.If you were trying to imply that the ruleset is tweaked on the fly, I really don't think that's what most of us do. I could be wrong.Well, I think you'd have to ask WotC that, although I think it has something to do with their design intent combined with what they learned during the play testing.That is, they designed the game that they thought would appeal to the most people, while maintaining as many connections to the design hallmarks of earlier editions (although not all of them equally - which very well could also have come from the play testing), and other design goals (some of which are business goals). So whether you (or I) like it or not, this is the game they published. Sales seem to indicate that a lot of folks do.As a result, you (and others that have different playstyles, like me) have to work with what they publish. It's not a question of "us" (whoever that is) "letting you" have your changes. It's a question of WotC ("them") deciding what they want to publish for their game. If you think that I, or [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION], or even a group of us have more control over what WotC publishes, then you're almost certainly mistaken. (@capnzapp might be Chris Perkins in disguise for all I know).But WotC has also said, that if you don't like something, you can publish your version too. There are different restrictions depending on whether you publish on DMsGuild or not. I don't have any illusions that WotC is going to publish what I write. They have people much smarter than me (thankfully). But I love that I have an opportunity to do so elsewhere.So I'm sure I'll be accused of not wanting to allow you to have your page count in the books. That's not my intent. But I'll tell you why I think that what you're describing is a long shot (and it really wouldn't make any difference to me either way).First, despite this thread, and numerous threads here and elsewhere saying "the rest system is broken", I haven't seen is a consensus as to what constitutes a fix. Until there is a variation, or even a couple of variations, that folks agree on, there's not really anything for them to publish. By far that's the most important thing you need to do. I haven't seen it yet. So chances are that WotC hasn't either.Once you have a solution that a group agrees on (doesn't have to convince all of us), then they have something to work with. So let's assume that happens, and in Xanathar's Guide to Everything or a future rulebook, they publish the rule(s) you want to see. These are, of course, variant rules, and not part of the core rules.Then you're suggesting that in each adventure, they publish a couple or three pages on how to make the adventure suit your variant rules. But there are already several other variant rules too. Shouldn't they get their couple or three pages too? What about new variants? Now we're talking a bunch of pages to modify the adventure to suit the variant rules of several different groups of players. That's a lot of work, and a lot of pages.The adventures don't do that, though. They don't acknowledge variant rules (unless the adventure is specifically designed around it), and assume that if you're using one or more of the variant rules, that you're able to deal with that aspect. Even monsters outside of the MM are reprinted in an adventure that uses them, because their expectation is that you have the PHB, DMG, and MM. They don't provide stats for monsters that are in the MM, nor descriptions of magic items that are in the DMG for that reason.Does that mean they won't do it at all? No, I think the various reworks of the ranger shows that they are listening to what's going on out there, and trying new ideas. Mike's "Grayhawk" initiative is another example of something that a smaller group has expressed opinions about (although that might benefit simply from Mike not liking the core initiative). Playable monster races were something people were asking for (not me), and that's been answered with TgtM. We don't know what will be in XgtE so it very well might have some other rest variants already.I totally support trying to come up with variants that work for you and others, and getting those published by WotC if that's what you want. A few pages in a rulebook, yes. But a few pages in every adventure? That's just not realistic (at least to me). If you choose to use the variant rules (or for that matter, your own home rules), then you've got to take on the extra work (if any) that involves.Now, that doesn't mean there isn't any value in it. There are a number of guides for specific adventures online, both in and out of the DMsGuild. My assumption is always that if it's something I like or care about, there's got to be somebody else that does too. So I want to make it available. So we can both enjoy them. But I have no illusions that it's a large group of players.</blockquote>

Verification