Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7446147" data-attributes="member: 16814">Your snark aside, the actual question that started this side-topic wasn't comparing mechanics but asking what aesthetics of play could be accomplished, at least to some degree.&nbsp; To that end, using only rules and guidance in 5e core, I provided an example.&nbsp; You've yet to do other than label that kitbashing. It's not (Again, backgrounds and the &quot;middle path&quot; guidance in the DMG).Trying to be fair to what I think is your point, yes, this is a mechanic that relies on GM ruling and isn't as hard coded as Fate mechanics are, and I understand your dislike of games that rely heavily on GM ruling (like almost every version of D&amp;D does).&nbsp; But, if we're at the point of dismissing out of hand those things specifically outlined in the rules because it uses GM ruling, we're going to have to toss pretty much all of D&amp;D.&nbsp; That's not tenable.I rather thought honestly pointing out how D&amp;D can do something Fate-like within its established rules and guidance while also pointing out that whatever that is Fate still does it way better wouldn't be as controversial as it is.&nbsp; Apparently, D&amp;D can't even be much less good at something, it must be unable at all or some purity line gets crossed.&nbsp; Which, again, has me questioning whether or not the goal here is honest analysis or winning points.&nbsp; I didn't say D&amp;D does everything, I said it can do this thing in a so-so way while Fate excels at it.&nbsp; I didn't say that because I have some need to defend D&amp;D, I said it because I play that way, and I haven't kitbashed it in to do so.&nbsp; As I said, D&amp;D is pretty broad, but it's also shallow -- there's lots of things it cam do within the core ruleset, but it doesn't excel at any of them.&nbsp; Pick a play aesthetic or goal and there's another system that does it better.&nbsp; The best thing D&amp;D does is be D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7446147, member: 16814"] Your snark aside, the actual question that started this side-topic wasn't comparing mechanics but asking what aesthetics of play could be accomplished, at least to some degree. To that end, using only rules and guidance in 5e core, I provided an example. You've yet to do other than label that kitbashing. It's not (Again, backgrounds and the "middle path" guidance in the DMG). Trying to be fair to what I think is your point, yes, this is a mechanic that relies on GM ruling and isn't as hard coded as Fate mechanics are, and I understand your dislike of games that rely heavily on GM ruling (like almost every version of D&D does). But, if we're at the point of dismissing out of hand those things specifically outlined in the rules because it uses GM ruling, we're going to have to toss pretty much all of D&D. That's not tenable. I rather thought honestly pointing out how D&D can do something Fate-like within its established rules and guidance while also pointing out that whatever that is Fate [i]still does it way better[/i] wouldn't be as controversial as it is. Apparently, D&D can't even be much less good at something, it must be unable at all or some purity line gets crossed. Which, again, has me questioning whether or not the goal here is honest analysis or winning points. I didn't say D&D does everything, I said it can do this thing in a so-so way while Fate excels at it. I didn't say that because I have some need to defend D&D, I said it because I play that way, and I haven't kitbashed it in to do so. As I said, D&D is pretty broad, but it's also shallow -- there's lots of things it cam do within the core ruleset, but it doesn't excel at any of them. Pick a play aesthetic or goal and there's another system that does it better. The best thing D&D does is be D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification