Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6574181" data-attributes="member: 957">I've fiddled around with 5E so much that I sometimes forget what is in the books and what is my own addition.&nbsp; So I may need so forgiveness here.But as I recall it, and as I play it, the defaults are just that, defaults.&nbsp; Under the right circumstances, a character may be able to apply proficiency to just about anything, if it makes sense that the character *would be proficient*&nbsp; If you have a character that doesn't have stealth from either class nor background, then this won't come up often.&nbsp; But it can come up.In short, I thunk I'm going at it differently, but completely agree with the point you are making.I want as few specific rules as possible, but I also want as many rules as necessary.&nbsp; &quot;Clear rules and procedures&quot; combined with a DM who is working to make the game fun and consistent, allows a lot fewer rules with a lot more rulings to achieve this balance.sorry, it seems I had a bit of inner dialog going and forgot to let anyone else in on it.I see statements in this thread that see very wary of DM rulings in 5E.&nbsp; To me this is highly reflective of comments sometimes made of 3E, which I obviously have vastly more years experience playing.&nbsp; I think the bottom line is pretty similar.&nbsp; A system that presumes a quality DM as part of the overall experience is free to be a better system because it is not spending part of its resources on propping up the DM.&nbsp; Now, if someone presumes bad DMing, then this logic fails because the bad DM is not propped up.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean the system itself is bad.&nbsp; It may just not be an appropriate system for the group in question.&nbsp; 3E could EASILY suck in a hurry.&nbsp; It just did not have to.&nbsp; I think 5E is in the same ballpark.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6574181, member: 957"] I've fiddled around with 5E so much that I sometimes forget what is in the books and what is my own addition. So I may need so forgiveness here. But as I recall it, and as I play it, the defaults are just that, defaults. Under the right circumstances, a character may be able to apply proficiency to just about anything, if it makes sense that the character *would be proficient* If you have a character that doesn't have stealth from either class nor background, then this won't come up often. But it can come up. In short, I thunk I'm going at it differently, but completely agree with the point you are making. I want as few specific rules as possible, but I also want as many rules as necessary. "Clear rules and procedures" combined with a DM who is working to make the game fun and consistent, allows a lot fewer rules with a lot more rulings to achieve this balance. sorry, it seems I had a bit of inner dialog going and forgot to let anyone else in on it. I see statements in this thread that see very wary of DM rulings in 5E. To me this is highly reflective of comments sometimes made of 3E, which I obviously have vastly more years experience playing. I think the bottom line is pretty similar. A system that presumes a quality DM as part of the overall experience is free to be a better system because it is not spending part of its resources on propping up the DM. Now, if someone presumes bad DMing, then this logic fails because the bad DM is not propped up. But that doesn't mean the system itself is bad. It may just not be an appropriate system for the group in question. 3E could EASILY suck in a hurry. It just did not have to. I think 5E is in the same ballpark. [/QUOTE]

Verification