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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9526770" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I'm sorry but I cannot parse this. Between spelling errors, lack of punctuation, and use of undefined terms, it's complete gibberish.Of course, but that's not the problem.The problem is that presentation matters. Once the rule books discuss degrees of success in concrete terms, players expect degrees of success to exist. The very fact that it would be described in the book will alter player behavior towards mechanical over narrative thinking.In pure mechanical terms or game terms, the existence of degrees of success is perfectly fine. Mechanically, it's not broken at all. The trouble is caused by describing degrees of success in a player-facing book.This is why it was important to rename Thief to Rogue. It's also why when you sit down at a D&D 2014 table, you assume that Drow Assassin is an available option, while at the same time you do not assume that a Aasimar Death Cleric is even though they're both in the core books.A game is about the things it chooses to spend time making rules on, but  TTRPGs are weird because they're also not. TTRPGs are actually about role-play, so they have to be incredibly careful about how they present mechanical rules. If you spend too much time on combat rules to the exclusion of everything else, then the game looks like it's entirely about combat. 4e D&D made this exact mistake in presentation, which is why it earned a reputation that it wasn't about roleplaying at all. The game spent about 310 of it's 330 pages in the PHB on abilities that were all but exclusively relegated to combat. I guess the game is 95% combat then?</blockquote>

Verification