Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3691329" data-attributes="member: 1465">It totally depends on the subject. Some gamers hate having to bother about how unrealistic it is that the PCs keeps buying and selling magic items like a piece of cake, or how the rest of the worlds "conforms itself" to suit the PCs' levels for example. They don't care, so for them it's totally ok to keep it as it is without adding more realism.I usually care about these two for example, and my players are not bothered by the fact that I care, so I try to run games where there is a little more randomness instead of a world that perfectly fits the PC's shopping needs.But when it comes to combat, I am not interested in adding more realism, for example differentiating weapons better, or expanding how armor works by adding extra layers like DR or protection from critical hits. It's just my taste: I'd actually like to have more variations, but then they tend to make the combat scenes more compicated to run, and since combat is already the most rule-heavy part of the game, I'd rather forget about adding any more realism.So for me there is no definitive answer... I can say that I'd be much more willing to add realism and complicate an area of the game which is currently rules-light, and keep rules-heavy areas as they are (or even simplify a couple, such as grappling and mounted/flying combat, even it that would reduce the already limited realism). But still, taste plays a big part in the final decision, and for me that usually means that I am more willing to add something to an aspect of the game that doesn't usually take the spotlight, and try to see if the game gets more interesting, rather than increasing the spotlight to combat which is already the dominating aspect of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification