Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8087730" data-attributes="member: 7025508">No. definitely not about cheating. Like in the situation of the bokken fitting in the crawlspace but a default staff not, I would absolutely prefer you to 'cheat' and just take the bloody thing with you. Far less jarring that way. The bokken is an object of certain agreed upon length, and behaves as such in the setting. If the rules fail to represent that properly, there's a disconnection and the rules have to change. (Default staff stats in PHB are a perfectly valid representation of the combat stats of a long bokken. They're pretty bad representation of actual quarterstaff though, so I have houseruled them...)And yeah, it makes things harder for the GM, but my distaste goes farther than that. Rules being disassociated from the fiction actively makes the game unfun to me and makes me stop caring about the rules altogether were I the GM or a player. I want having a high dexterity score to mean being agile and agile things to have a high dexterity score. I have no use for rules that are not representing things that exist in the fiction, that sort of ludo-narrative disconnect is a massive fun and immersion killer for me. And sure there is a lot of abstraction, but I want the concrete connection to be there. And I think this is pretty common attitude, I believe this was a big part of why so many people reacted to 4E so negatively, it had clearly more severely disassociated mechanics than any of the previous editions did or that 5E does. (I know that you don't think things this way and it is a big part of the reason for our disagreement on the ASIs. We simply see the whole purpose of the mechanics differently.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 8087730, member: 7025508"] No. definitely not about cheating. Like in the situation of the bokken fitting in the crawlspace but a default staff not, I would absolutely prefer you to 'cheat' and just take the bloody thing with you. Far less jarring that way. The bokken is an object of certain agreed upon length, and behaves as such in the setting. If the rules fail to represent that properly, there's a disconnection and the rules have to change. (Default staff stats in PHB are a perfectly valid representation of the combat stats of a long bokken. They're pretty bad representation of actual quarterstaff though, so I have houseruled them...) And yeah, it makes things harder for the GM, but my distaste goes farther than that. Rules being disassociated from the fiction actively makes the game unfun to me and makes me stop caring about the rules altogether were I the GM or a player. I want having a high dexterity score to mean being agile and agile things to have a high dexterity score. I have no use for rules that are not representing things that exist in the fiction, that sort of ludo-narrative disconnect is a massive fun and immersion killer for me. And sure there is a lot of abstraction, but I want the concrete connection to be there. And I think this is pretty common attitude, I believe this was a big part of why so many people reacted to 4E so negatively, it had clearly more severely disassociated mechanics than any of the previous editions did or that 5E does. (I know that you don't think things this way and it is a big part of the reason for our disagreement on the ASIs. We simply see the whole purpose of the mechanics differently.) [/QUOTE]

Verification