Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9030370" data-attributes="member: 71699">IKR! They really could have done a better job of identifying and calling attention to their game text structure. It took a great deal of analysis of the text through robust debate here and elsewhere to see that structure.The best example I can think of are the rules for ability checks. The PHB contains a workable set of rules which on surface look complete. What a GM is told to have in mind for a PHB ability check is uncertainty. But then check the DMG. There are additional, non-conflicting rules, that bring in consequences. The DMG rules work together with the PHB rules to offer a more sophisticated game.I believe that is intentional albeit as you point out, woefully unexplained!Well, I'm not a fan of really big RPG books. And I quite like the strategy of offering layers of sophistication. I just wish they'd articulated that. Maybe for some reason they didn't see it as a priority... they expected folk would find their way there.The idea of redundancy isn't absurd. It is statement about the design strategies employed. An example, which rules in the DMG are per text, optional? Turns out that there is an intentional strategy of labelling optional rules optional, and variant rules variant, and then - in the DMG - there are also just rules. Run through those rules and see if you can find any conflicts with PHB rules. Consider them from a perspective of building upon the PHB rules.The DMG isn't expected to be a critical resource, I agree. PHB 5e D&amp;D is a thing. It's probably the most widely played mode of 5e D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9030370, member: 71699"] IKR! They really could have done a better job of identifying and calling attention to their game text structure. It took a great deal of analysis of the text through robust debate here and elsewhere to see that structure. The best example I can think of are the rules for ability checks. The PHB contains a workable set of rules which on surface look complete. What a GM is told to have in mind for a PHB ability check is uncertainty. But then check the DMG. There are additional, non-conflicting rules, that bring in consequences. The DMG rules work together with the PHB rules to offer a more sophisticated game. I believe that is intentional albeit as you point out, woefully unexplained! Well, I'm not a fan of really big RPG books. And I quite like the strategy of offering layers of sophistication. I just wish they'd articulated that. Maybe for some reason they didn't see it as a priority... they expected folk would find their way there. The idea of redundancy isn't absurd. It is statement about the design strategies employed. An example, which rules in the DMG are per text, optional? Turns out that there is an intentional strategy of labelling optional rules optional, and variant rules variant, and then - in the DMG - there are also just rules. Run through those rules and see if you can find any conflicts with PHB rules. Consider them from a perspective of building upon the PHB rules. The DMG isn't expected to be a critical resource, I agree. PHB 5e D&D is a thing. It's probably the most widely played mode of 5e D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification