D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[MichaelSomething]

I agree with the bolded idea but disagree with the "mechanically-reflected" part; if the DM is doing her job well then mechanics are unnecessary and just get in everyone's way.

Well some people get the impression that D&D is about the mechanics due to all of the mechanics in those pesky books. I'm not sure how you counter that...

 

[Stormonu]

Well some people get the impression that D&D is about the mechanics due to all of the mechanics in those pesky books. I'm not sure how you counter that...

It’s probably a carry-over from 3E days. I know one of the things I liked about 3E was that it mapped out a lot of abilities into mechanics. That it was tied to mechanics felt to me was that it then had an impact and couldn’t just be hand-waved away. But it did get burdensome when “every little thing” mattered too much.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

3E days

 

[Helldritch]

It’s probably a carry-over from 3E days. I know one of the things I liked about 3E was that it mapped out a lot of abilities into mechanics. That it was tied to mechanics felt to me was that it then had an impact and couldn’t just be hand-waved away. But it did get burdensome when “every little thing” mattered too much.

5ed trimmed down a lot of the unnecessary mechanics of 3.xed and 4ed. The amount of skill rolls would get in the way of both combat and RP of the game. Though I would've liked 5ed to be more precise on some of the mechanics, and I look at you hiding rules, I must admit that most of the time, the natural language was the way to go as it leaves a lot in the hands of the different tables playing the game. You want something more? Add it. You like it this way? Do nothing. Quite simple as a game and way faster than many previous editions (especially 3.xed and, to a lesser extent (but not that much), 4ed).

 

[Thomas Shey]

At least have some real world proof that it works and the game is successful. You have no defense of your opinion other than "Cuz I said so."

Given I've been more or less practicing what I preach for at least five years now, I'd call that real world proof. What's yours that it wouldn't?

Who's right? Who knows. They have a winning formula, it's not going to change.

In other words "I'm right, you're wrong.". Can we just save a post or ten and assume your response will be "I'm right, you're wrong"?

You know, if you don't want to continue there's a simple way to do that: stop responding. If you insist on doing so, then expect the other guy to do it for your convenience is--well, its something all right.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would never play D&D if there was no DM.

Having no DM and not having them have final authority are not identical sets.

 

[Cadence]

Stupid rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Everyone gives bad advice sometimes.

 

[Cadence]

Everyone gives bad advice sometimes.

The early sage advice talks about RAW, RAI, and RAF. If having a RAW/RAI DM isn't satisfying RAF, I assume they can abdicate that power by RAF.

 

[Oofta]

Given I've been more or less practicing what I preach for at least five years now, I'd call that real world proof. What's yours that it wouldn't?



You know, if you don't want to continue there's a simple way to do that: stop responding. If you insist on doing so, then expect the other guy to do it for your convenience is--well, its something all right.

I'm sure it works for some people. That doesn't mean it's going to work in general when 90%+ of the people likely still use the "DM makes the final call".

In other words, no - you hang up!

EDIT: I kid, I kid. Have a good one, I just don't think there's any way for this to be resolved. I disagree, no amount of "discussion" is going to change it. Maybe set up a survey to see if other people on the forum think it's a good idea? Give a sample of what you do? Because I rarely have conflict at my table the way it is.