Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8644680" data-attributes="member: 22779">I don't doubt that it was deliberate.Being deliberate doesn't make it good.&nbsp; And, this is just Mearls punting on the issue.&nbsp; His argument that you wind up with &quot;a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules.&quot; is pretty easily countered with, &quot;how often?&quot;How often do these loophole situations come up?&nbsp; If they only come up once in a really, really blue moon, then they're not a problem, are they?&nbsp; And, wouldn't rules that have an odd exception that comes up in really odd situations be better than a non-rule which basically dumps everything in the DM's lap and expects the DM to make on the fly decisions that work for the table without any guidance from the rules and hopefully the DM is a good enough game designer?So, no, I don't buy that it's good game design at all.&nbsp; Good game design doesn't require constant oversight from the DM just to make it work.&nbsp; Good game design works most of the time and then asks the DM to step in to sand off the rough edges when they come up.&nbsp; Which is precisely what the &quot;rulings over rules&quot; is supposed to fix.&nbsp; If you have to make rulings every single time, that's not a rule at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8644680, member: 22779"] I don't doubt that it was deliberate. Being deliberate doesn't make it good. And, this is just Mearls punting on the issue. His argument that you wind up with "a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules." is pretty easily countered with, "how often?" How often do these loophole situations come up? If they only come up once in a really, really blue moon, then they're not a problem, are they? And, wouldn't rules that have an odd exception that comes up in really odd situations be better than a non-rule which basically dumps everything in the DM's lap and expects the DM to make on the fly decisions that work for the table without any guidance from the rules and hopefully the DM is a good enough game designer? So, no, I don't buy that it's good game design at all. Good game design doesn't require constant oversight from the DM just to make it work. Good game design works most of the time and then asks the DM to step in to sand off the rough edges when they come up. Which is precisely what the "rulings over rules" is supposed to fix. If you have to make rulings every single time, that's not a rule at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification