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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8416147" data-attributes="member: 86653">Nothing is ever perfect. Waiting for a perfect example is deciding to dismiss the conversation. Add in the sequence of actions to the mix and make it mostly friendly characters taking up space. According to the rules, you can't have characters shuffle positions. Until there's an unoccupied square to move into, a character cannot move into that square. But two people could easily switch spots in the real world. You and I on line at the movies (wearing masks of course). We can switch spots. We don't have to move 5ft out of line, wait while the other steps into the now unoccupied square, and then move into the new unoccupied square. Put two D&D characters into a 5ft wide, 10ft long space, and they're permanently stuck there. One cannot move into the other's square. But we both know 5ft x 10ft is more than enough room for two people to move around each other. Some apartment kitchens are smaller than that. Yet two people can be in the same kitchen moving around each other freely. It might be cramped, sure. But it's physically possible. But not according to D&D.Halflings can move through threatened squares, but not end there. But the DMG has rules for climbing onto other creatures. So apparently our 5ft squares only present when we're on the ground.Sure. But why? Why would it need to be that complex? Why have a rule about it at all? Unless you're talking about a square body, bodies don't take up 5ft of space and prevent others from entering that space. The rules contradict reality so we have to make a choice. Which is more important: adherence to nonsensical rules or not contradicting reality? The FKR player / DM would say not contradicting reality or the fiction of the game. Rules be damned.Right. So since you trust the DM enough to come up with some rules, why not trust the DM to come up with the other rules? I mean, you already trust them enough to not say "rocks fall, everyone dies" so why not trust them to be fair with making the rules. Again, you already trust them to do this?System doesn't need to be visible. Players want it to be visible. Those are not the same. Besides, "roll 2d6, higher is better; use opposed rolls when appropriate" is perfectly visible and flexible. So why do we need anything more complex than that?Not really.Ockham's razor. The simplest solution is the best one. It's simpler to obscure the rules from the players. It's also really freeing as a DM. You should try it. You can run whatever rules you want, you don't have to worry about whether the system is popular or not, or whether the players have bought in or could even understand the system...it doesn't even need to exist in a language the players can read. It's infinitely easier to tell the players to roll the appropriate dice when they need to rather than explain the hodgepodge mess of house rules and variants you're using to get the style of game you want to play.I haven't played or read much of BITD, so I wouldn't know. I do know enough about FKR to say that the opposite is certainly true of the FKR. Play worlds, not rules.</blockquote>

Verification