Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="invokethehojo" data-source="post: 4923504" data-attributes="member: 62525">Here is my problem with your way of thinking: I play with a group at a local nerd store where most of the group doesn't talk much outside of the gaming table.&nbsp; When we get together it works best if we can all play off what is in the books.&nbsp; Telling everyone that you are running something for 4e next week tells them they should expect to play by the book.&nbsp; If you want to communicate to them that you intend to change things a little bit means, at least with this current editions, that you have to really spell things out very clearly.&nbsp; The chances are small, yet it always seems to happen, that when you change something tiny (for the sake of this argument lets say adding more wonder) you affect the entire game.&nbsp;&nbsp; When you decide to make things less explicit (which is how the book lays them out) there will inevitably be a character built around monster knowledge, or an artificer built around magic item manipulation. In this situation it becomes very easy to 1. screw your players out of the character they want to play because your flavor changes the rules that governs the character they want to play or 2. you have to spend a lot of time specifically writing out how your flavor changes affect this or that aspect of the game.&nbsp; Everyone should be able to approach the game being confident that what they read in the book is what they will see at the table, so they can build their character accordingly.&nbsp; If a system is so intricate that a specific character can be ruined by a tweak in the flavor of it's rules (which ends up affecting those rules), then the system could use some work in my opinion.&nbsp; You shouldn't have to worry about walking into a game with a character that just doesn't work even though it was made by the book purely because the DM changed a little bit of the flavor of the game.The point I'm trying to make here is that 5e could be designed from the ground up in such a way that making a small change in flavor wouldn't have potentially devastating or far reaching effects on the rest of the rules, like it does now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="invokethehojo, post: 4923504, member: 62525"] Here is my problem with your way of thinking: I play with a group at a local nerd store where most of the group doesn't talk much outside of the gaming table. When we get together it works best if we can all play off what is in the books. Telling everyone that you are running something for 4e next week tells them they should expect to play by the book. If you want to communicate to them that you intend to change things a little bit means, at least with this current editions, that you have to really spell things out very clearly. The chances are small, yet it always seems to happen, that when you change something tiny (for the sake of this argument lets say adding more wonder) you affect the entire game. When you decide to make things less explicit (which is how the book lays them out) there will inevitably be a character built around monster knowledge, or an artificer built around magic item manipulation. In this situation it becomes very easy to 1. screw your players out of the character they want to play because your flavor changes the rules that governs the character they want to play or 2. you have to spend a lot of time specifically writing out how your flavor changes affect this or that aspect of the game. Everyone should be able to approach the game being confident that what they read in the book is what they will see at the table, so they can build their character accordingly. If a system is so intricate that a specific character can be ruined by a tweak in the flavor of it's rules (which ends up affecting those rules), then the system could use some work in my opinion. You shouldn't have to worry about walking into a game with a character that just doesn't work even though it was made by the book purely because the DM changed a little bit of the flavor of the game. The point I'm trying to make here is that 5e could be designed from the ground up in such a way that making a small change in flavor wouldn't have potentially devastating or far reaching effects on the rest of the rules, like it does now. [/QUOTE]

Verification