Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9343440" data-attributes="member: 7040941">No, it really wasn't. The point of those rules is what they say on the tin. Nothing more. This is why I'm saying this is all retroactive reinterpretation. But it does illustrate the problem with the logic. Retroactive reinterpretation isn't a v3ru kosher way of thinking and shouldn't be put in practice. And especially not to make declarative statements like what was in question. Blocking is blocking. And what you point out is a consequence of designing while unconscious to underlying improv game; neither the players nor the Rules have any built in way to interact in a feedback loop with what the DM can introduce. That doesn't mean the solution is to overcorrect and collapse the role into basically nothing, but it does mean you need to address how that DM plays. OSR games do this well by philosophy, and speaking for myself I'm hoping to do it by just being explicit about improv. That's in reference to another poster talking about PBTA et al; I of course agree DND isn't like that. But as the other poster said, that is what PBTA is like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9343440, member: 7040941"] No, it really wasn't. The point of those rules is what they say on the tin. Nothing more. This is why I'm saying this is all retroactive reinterpretation. But it does illustrate the problem with the logic. Retroactive reinterpretation isn't a v3ru kosher way of thinking and shouldn't be put in practice. And especially not to make declarative statements like what was in question. Blocking is blocking. And what you point out is a consequence of designing while unconscious to underlying improv game; neither the players nor the Rules have any built in way to interact in a feedback loop with what the DM can introduce. That doesn't mean the solution is to overcorrect and collapse the role into basically nothing, but it does mean you need to address how that DM plays. OSR games do this well by philosophy, and speaking for myself I'm hoping to do it by just being explicit about improv. That's in reference to another poster talking about PBTA et al; I of course agree DND isn't like that. But as the other poster said, that [I]is[/I] what PBTA is like. [/QUOTE]

Verification