For players that like nuance,it would probably be better. But I agree, it generally works fine.
D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
CreamCloud0
Hero
i feel like a fairly simple solution to this would just be to let rules for codified actions apply to everyone, but only the classes with the feature get to apply all their bonuses.
Corinnguard
Hero
Much like how 5e allows everyone to fight with two weapons simultaneously while allowing those with the TWF Fighting style to get the damage bonus for their offhand weapon.
mamba
Legend
how does it do that? Have a rule that tells me not to change anything? If I want to change something that is not really going to stop me…
Can you name a TTRPG you consider a ‘bad game’ according to your criteria?
Xenolith234
Adventurer
And if it doesn’t provide alternative rules to get the adjustments you seek without doing it yourself. Thoughtful variant rules.
Remathilis
Legend
I'm pretty sure that's called the Oberoni Fallacy.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
"Every game that doesn't allow you to modify the rules is bad, and every game that allows you to modify the rules is good" is an equally ridiculous position.
You've literally given examles of three different games that do not have "Rule Zero". Yet you agree they can be adjusted if the players feel it necessary. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that every game can be changed if the players feel it necessary--and thus there is no such thing as a badly-designed game.
Even if that critical flaw weren't present, it's quite clear that a game can be designed badly separately from whether they permit modification. A game about combat that has zero rules for combat is a badly-made game, objectively, it's literally bad at doing the thing it was designed to do.
Remathilis
Legend
I think that's getting forgotten. Just because D&D can be modified to a particular style doesn't mean it was designed for handling that style. The d20 system is absolutely amazing at handling a variety of game styles. Dungeons and Dragons
as written in the PHB, is less so.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Not quite. It's a close sibling, but not the Oberoni Fallacy proper. That's the argument that any problem one might have isn't a problem because one can apply "Rule Zero". What this is saying is, any game that is somehow impossible to modify (which...I'm not sure how that would even work, as @mamba noted) is necessarily a badly-designed game, and any game that permits modification is necessarily a well-designed game.
It's just the unavoidable consequence of the obsession with the "auteur DM" and the claim that any specific edition of D&D is a pure, uncommitted, generic toolbox...when it is absolutely not any of those four things (neither pure, nor uncommitted, nor generic, nor even that much of a toolbox.)
DinoInDisguise
A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.
This "fallacy" isn't a fallacy but just a difference in opinion.
Snarf explains why this is, link below, and why we shouldn't just dismiss arguments with "but fallacy."
Remember a fallacy requires a "mistaken belief" or a "failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid." Simply not agreeing isnt on that list. And saying "a problem isn't a problem because I can fix it" doesn't meet the definition either. To quote Snarf on this fallacy, "one might as well say, to coin a phrase, "Rules, not rulings.""
Similar Threads
