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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8307263" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Ahhh... I actually got that inkling, but wasn't sure it was a logical/debate term. Thanks for clearing it up!I'd think this is less an issue of "we don't want the rules changed", and more of a "we don't trust you or each other".I mean, I once was allowed to play my 20th level (1e) Magic-User...in a group where everyone else was 2nd or 3rd level. It was in "In Search of the Unknown" (B1). It was fun for that session...I don't think I played him the full session...probably only a few hours. But the point was that the DM and the other Players trusted me to not "spoil their fun".Ahhh...so not a "normal, in-person, long standing gaming group" is your base. That also helps explain your experience. I can totally understand that; people who don't know each other's playing style or preference want to know where they stand. They want to have solid footing, so to say, before they start to feel comfortable opening up and saying "I really like..." or "I don't like..." and then asking/initiating rule changes that might step on the toes of others in the group.With "real life" groups of people who become friends and long-term players over months, years and decades...this "RAW mentality" is, in my experience, quite rare. I can't actually think of a single group of people I've met over the last 40 years of gaming that have had the "RAW mentality".Seems a reasonable stance. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> For the 5 minute work day thing... I'd say that yes, it is potentially an issue. But I'd say that the issue isn't so much the way the rules are written as how those rules are used in game. In my group, for example, there is no "5mwd" issues...because our style is more "What would our characters do" and not so much "What should we do".The distinction being that my players (and me, for NPC's) make decisions based on the current situation/narrative going on in the game (for the most part). If the PC's are chasing a bad guy who has absconded with a dragon egg, and one or more PC's get seriously injured, or have no spells left, or have no more "uses" of their key special ability...my players would opt to continue the chase, despite the OBVIOUS in-game consequences. Why? Because it makes "narrative sense". Even if it wasn't time sensitive; just being in a dungeon for an hour, getting into a big fight and using a lot of 'daily' type resources, they'd opt to continue on for a while...because, to their characters minds, "it's only been an hour or so". They still have the ability to fight, cast a handful of spells, use a minor ability or two...but if they get into a BIG fight/danger? Then they figure out a way to survive...or run! The idea of the 5mwd is NOT an "issue" for them as Players.It's not an issue for them because of play style and expectations. IMNSHO, the 5mwd is a problem when a player gets upset because they feel they are now "useless" and "can't do anything", which equates in their mind to "...so why am I even trying to play?". That said, the 5e Rules DO tend to cause this mindset in far too many people...which is probably an indicator that the rules might need to be re-jiggered or otherwise futzed with. My fix if I was designer of 6e, would be to go backwards. Start removing "powers and abilities" that have a 1-use (or very limited use) mechanic, consolidate them into broader categories, and leave the nuances up to the DM and Players to decide. There would be more "always on" things for classes, but those would be weaker in power and/or require various rolls, checks etc. (ex: A barbarians Rage might just be a simple DC ## Con check to enter, but only last a number of rounds equal to XYZ; then another Rage Check is rolled....that sort of thing).^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification