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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8377559" data-attributes="member: 7032025">There are not 3 paths, there is a gradation from one extreme to another (and actually a space of differences rather than just a line). I'm close to one extreme, meaning that approaches that are closer to the middle path are still getting the same advantages and drawbacks, although to a lesser degree.First, there is no "preset narrative". This is an overreading of the "ignore the dice". What there is is a consistent world, where there is logic in what is happening, but linked to the world itself, not to rules.Second, for me, it's much stronger to be constrained by abstract rules than by the logic of a world. Especially when (see below), you constrain things even further than even the rules require, as especially 5e rules are fuzzy. Choosing not to apply circumstancial modifiers (when they are advocated for everywhere in the rules) makes for a world that is even more constrained.Finally, I'm not changing any mechanic. I have consistently proven to you that i actually use the same RAW you do, just in a different combination.It has absolutely everything to do. If a player uses a flourish (rule) to tell me that he is particularly watching that pillar because he knows that is where the rogue went to hide, I will apply this as a modifier to the stealth/perception check, or even decide that the rogue could not hide without even rolling because he chose a stupid place to hide and the player was attentive enough to notice and take countermeasures. And, by the way, this is absolutely, 100% RAW.Moreover, it's exactly what is described in "Ignoring the dice".  And, exactly as described, it has advantages and drawbacks, the advantage is that it encourages all players to be more involved in roleplaying their character in the game world rather than looking at the technical way hiding works.And I agree that the disadvantage is that it discourages certain approaches such as a rogue to try to hide behind a single pillar where he would be found instantly. But it does not dictate anything to the rogue player, he can still make that choice, just as any player can make the choice to run away and take an AoO if he thinks that it's more advantageous for other reasons.The problem is that, following 3e, we have whole generations of gamers who play the game extremely technically, but have very thin skin about it. Once more, all these words are words from the Devs (and I completely agree with them):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.</li> </ul>Players who are concerned about DPR of classes compared to each other are fine (as long as they don't, as is often the case, become too much of a powergamer or even worse, a munchkin), it's just that their focus is on rules and their importance in the game, and therefore less on story and roleplaying. Again, nothing wrong with that, but a cheese can only be cut in parts that amount to a circle. If the rules are so important that they are the basis for a game, that's fine, just assume it.I totally assume my choice to focus on story and roleplaying at the expense of rules (which does not mean that I break them for fun or on purpose, but that I usually use them creatively too), it would be nice if people who make the opposite choice would also assume it gracefully without feeling offended by simple truths, and at least understand what the developers of the game are saying, even when they make their own choices.</blockquote>

Verification