Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7602260" data-attributes="member: 996">Every seen a recipe that says &quot;add ______ to taste?&quot;&nbsp; Sure, 5e is like a recipe - one where every ingredient is &quot;to taste.&quot;&nbsp;You follow your interpretation of the recipe, to your taste. Unless it blows up on you, it'd be unfair of someone else to say that you're doing it wrong.&nbsp; Grant others the same courtesy, rather than claiming you have a lock on the One True RaW.&nbsp;You're seeing it in pemerton's posts, among others.&nbsp; Describing the results of an action can include narrating what a character thinks, decides, does or feels - or not, depending on your interpretation.&nbsp;I suspect it may have been more along the lines of experience with past editions can't be entirely set aside or compartmentalized when learning a new edition.&nbsp; I went so far as to say it'd be very helpful.&nbsp; I doubt anyone really claimed that 5e is impossible for new players to learn.&nbsp;IIRC,&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is an actual philosopher, like IRL.&nbsp; Or am I miss-remembering?&nbsp;Players typically pick equipment from a list in the rule book, and are privileged (a privilege first formalized in 3.0) to describe what their that gear looks like.&nbsp; Adding to or banning from those lists, though, is presumably the DM's prerogative.&nbsp; &nbsp;The DM's authority could include ruling that the player doesn't (or does) have rope if it's found not to be on his character sheet, or narrating that the player doesn't find said rope where he left it (it may have been stolen, or lost, say).&nbsp;OK, I have to acknowledge those are good points, and not even all exclusively from past editions.&nbsp; 4e &amp; 5e did get /very/ careful about 'pet' mechanics, though, which seems consistent with the intent for them being player-controlled (and that was clearly spelled out in 4e, of course, since it was way more precise &amp; jargony).&nbsp;I question that the D&amp;D player actually has /final/ authority over his character.&nbsp; Rather, the process of play is that he generally makes decisions for his character.&nbsp; In 'narrating results' the DM could essentially take control of the character (something that freaks some players out, admittedly, but arguably within the scope of the DM's 'power,' that scope being essentially unlimited).&nbsp;I don't see an inherent contradiction.&nbsp; People can have one sort of relationship, each as far as the other knows (understands/experiences), yet the interior life of either or both my not be in synch with that. &nbsp;The DM would seem to have that authority, both traditionally through most of the game's history, and specifically in 5e.&nbsp; But, like all rules, it's open to interpretation - DM interpretation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7602260, member: 996"] Every seen a recipe that says "add ______ to taste?" Sure, 5e is like a recipe - one where every ingredient is "to taste." You follow your interpretation of the recipe, to your taste. Unless it blows up on you, it'd be unfair of someone else to say that you're doing it wrong. Grant others the same courtesy, rather than claiming you have a lock on the One True RaW. You're seeing it in pemerton's posts, among others. Describing the results of an action can include narrating what a character thinks, decides, does or feels - or not, depending on your interpretation. I suspect it may have been more along the lines of experience with past editions can't be entirely set aside or compartmentalized when learning a new edition. I went so far as to say it'd be very helpful. I doubt anyone really claimed that 5e is impossible for new players to learn. IIRC, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is an actual philosopher, like IRL. Or am I miss-remembering? Players typically pick equipment from a list in the rule book, and are privileged (a privilege first formalized in 3.0) to describe what their that gear looks like. Adding to or banning from those lists, though, is presumably the DM's prerogative. The DM's authority could include ruling that the player doesn't (or does) have rope if it's found not to be on his character sheet, or narrating that the player doesn't find said rope where he left it (it may have been stolen, or lost, say). OK, I have to acknowledge those are good points, and not even all exclusively from past editions. 4e & 5e did get /very/ careful about 'pet' mechanics, though, which seems consistent with the intent for them being player-controlled (and that was clearly spelled out in 4e, of course, since it was way more precise & jargony). I question that the D&D player actually has /final/ authority over his character. Rather, the process of play is that he generally makes decisions for his character. In 'narrating results' the DM could essentially take control of the character (something that freaks some players out, admittedly, but arguably within the scope of the DM's 'power,' that scope being essentially unlimited). I don't see an inherent contradiction. People can have one sort of relationship, each as far as the other knows (understands/experiences), yet the interior life of either or both my not be in synch with that. The DM would seem to have that authority, both traditionally through most of the game's history, and specifically in 5e. But, like all rules, it's open to interpretation - DM interpretation. [/QUOTE]

Verification