Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9326110" data-attributes="member: 90374">You are veering into strategy vs tactics territory and ignoring the fact that many folks like mechanical combat. You really cant blame them either when significant amount of the rules space in books is dedicated to combat. So, while you may occasionally dispatch a foe through a clever ruse, you will eventually have to actually fight by the combat rules. If you examine the editions of D&amp;D, many of the items you list here were difficult to accomplish. 3E/PF1 had rules for just about anything. Sure, you could knock stuff over, push a guy, dirty trick a monster, etc.. but it was mechanically bad to do so unless you put items on your character sheet that made the PC good at it. 4E/PF2 is built around tactics so that your moves/abilities/etc.. are designed to work in a teamwork fashion. So, yes, taking character sheet actions is often the most efficient and successful way to engage a combat encounter. I do think 5E leans more into the improv area with (dis)advantage mechanic, but for many, it feels too simplified and overused.&nbsp; So, we are back to the rulings over rules topic. When do you ditch the rules and use rulings? I dont think there is a universal answer becasue this thread alone proves that some folks like mechanical guidance. It helps steer the GM/player towards expected play that is fairly arbitrated. Though, others enjoy the creative freedom a rulings philosophy can offer, at least in theory. It all comes down to the trust which I think is difficult to establish, which is why rules are popular with many gamers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 9326110, member: 90374"] You are veering into strategy vs tactics territory and ignoring the fact that many folks like mechanical combat. You really cant blame them either when significant amount of the rules space in books is dedicated to combat. So, while you may occasionally dispatch a foe through a clever ruse, you will eventually have to actually fight by the combat rules. If you examine the editions of D&D, many of the items you list here were difficult to accomplish. 3E/PF1 had rules for just about anything. Sure, you could knock stuff over, push a guy, dirty trick a monster, etc.. but it was mechanically bad to do so unless you put items on your character sheet that made the PC good at it. 4E/PF2 is built around tactics so that your moves/abilities/etc.. are designed to work in a teamwork fashion. So, yes, taking character sheet actions is often the most efficient and successful way to engage a combat encounter. I do think 5E leans more into the improv area with (dis)advantage mechanic, but for many, it feels too simplified and overused. So, we are back to the rulings over rules topic. When do you ditch the rules and use rulings? I dont think there is a universal answer becasue this thread alone proves that some folks like mechanical guidance. It helps steer the GM/player towards expected play that is fairly arbitrated. Though, others enjoy the creative freedom a rulings philosophy can offer, at least in theory. It all comes down to the trust which I think is difficult to establish, which is why rules are popular with many gamers. [/QUOTE]

Verification