Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 7025213" data-attributes="member: 6855114">I could not have resumed it better myself. The only thing I could add is the following.Since RPG existed, we have seen zounds of rules and ruling. From these, some form of unsaid concensus appeared. Although it is not explicitly stated, the rules are bent by the pragmatist to suit an historical and a logical view of what was done before and what should be (or should've been).The litteralist cares nothing but the rules. If a rule does not say &quot;x&quot; then &quot;x&quot; is not allowed/permitted. Is that a bad view or a bad way to do things? I surely would not throw them a rock as I am most of the time, a rule abiding type of DM. But sometimes, pragamatism takes over me and all of a sudden, a rule that does not fit what I would've expected from it will be changed. The invisibility rule is one of them. The duration of the shield spell is an other one that I changed (see the thread on the shield spell... very enlightening).By going for a DM ruling point of view, 5ed went back to the roots of D&amp;D. We are far from a rule for everything. This has the advantage of allowing a DM to improvise and adapt rules on the go if the DM deems it necessary. The downside is that sometimes, rulings might become inconsistent as a similar situation can be ruled differently. This is something we would not see in 3.x, 4ed as there is almost a rule for every situation you might come up with.What we see in most of these threads are really the two points of view that Oofta described. From my perspective, none of these are bad. On some topics, I am on one side. On some others I am on the other side. Both can have pretty good points going for themselves. All you have to keep in mind is what you wish to do at your table on that particuliar topic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helldritch, post: 7025213, member: 6855114"] I could not have resumed it better myself. The only thing I could add is the following. Since RPG existed, we have seen zounds of rules and ruling. From these, some form of unsaid concensus appeared. Although it is not explicitly stated, the rules are bent by the pragmatist to suit an historical and a logical view of what was done before and what should be (or should've been). The litteralist cares nothing but the rules. If a rule does not say "x" then "x" is not allowed/permitted. Is that a bad view or a bad way to do things? I surely would not throw them a rock as I am most of the time, a rule abiding type of DM. But sometimes, pragamatism takes over me and all of a sudden, a rule that does not fit what I would've expected from it will be changed. The invisibility rule is one of them. The duration of the shield spell is an other one that I changed (see the thread on the shield spell... very enlightening). By going for a DM ruling point of view, 5ed went back to the roots of D&D. We are far from a rule for everything. This has the advantage of allowing a DM to improvise and adapt rules on the go if the DM deems it necessary. The downside is that sometimes, rulings might become inconsistent as a similar situation can be ruled differently. This is something we would not see in 3.x, 4ed as there is almost a rule for every situation you might come up with. What we see in most of these threads are really the two points of view that Oofta described. From my perspective, none of these are bad. On some topics, I am on one side. On some others I am on the other side. Both can have pretty good points going for themselves. All you have to keep in mind is what you wish to do at your table on that particuliar topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification