Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6639120" data-attributes="member: 996">Ideally, sure.&nbsp; A game's system should be clear, balanced, and playable enough to function that way most of the time.&nbsp; D&amp;D has rarely delivered on that, though.&nbsp; It has a long tradition of falling back on player knowledge and DM judgement.&nbsp; 5e consciously embraces that tradition.It's inappropriate for the reason you give, I agree - but it's not ridiculous, if only because it was done that way for so long.&nbsp; In early D&amp;D, there was no skill system.&nbsp; If you wanted your character to do much of anything besides make an attack roll or cast a spell, you described what you did.&nbsp; If you wanted to build a fire, you better know, personally, how to start a fire (and the DM had better agree with you on that point).&nbsp; It didn't matter if your character was a citified Theif who'd never started a campfire in his life, or a 10th level Ranger, his basic survival skills depended on the DM's opinion of the knowledge displayed by the player.That's arguably a horrible way to run a game, but it was the reality we dealt with for a long time, and 5e is too committed to evoking the feel of those days to entirely reject such player-as-resolution-system solutions.&nbsp;It is a perennial and egregious failing of D&amp;D, yes.&nbsp; But, 5e, with it's strong emphasis on capturing the classic feel of the game, and at least nominal inclusiveness towards all editions and styles, made it an edition that could not possibly have tackled that issue.&nbsp; Doing so is just far outside it's stated goals.&nbsp; That it made it worse than it's been since 1999 can't even be held against it.&nbsp; D&amp;D has a long tradition of caster supremacy and martial inferiority:&nbsp; 5e couldn't have reached it's goals without embracing that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6639120, member: 996"] Ideally, sure. A game's system should be clear, balanced, and playable enough to function that way most of the time. D&D has rarely delivered on that, though. It has a long tradition of falling back on player knowledge and DM judgement. 5e consciously embraces that tradition. It's inappropriate for the reason you give, I agree - but it's not ridiculous, if only because it was done that way for so long. In early D&D, there was no skill system. If you wanted your character to do much of anything besides make an attack roll or cast a spell, you described what you did. If you wanted to build a fire, you better know, personally, how to start a fire (and the DM had better agree with you on that point). It didn't matter if your character was a citified Theif who'd never started a campfire in his life, or a 10th level Ranger, his basic survival skills depended on the DM's opinion of the knowledge displayed by the player. That's arguably a horrible way to run a game, but it was the reality we dealt with for a long time, and 5e is too committed to evoking the feel of those days to entirely reject such player-as-resolution-system solutions. It is a perennial and egregious failing of D&D, yes. But, 5e, with it's strong emphasis on capturing the classic feel of the game, and at least nominal inclusiveness towards all editions and styles, made it an edition that could not possibly have tackled that issue. Doing so is just far outside it's stated goals. That it made it worse than it's been since 1999 can't even be held against it. D&D has a long tradition of caster supremacy and martial inferiority: 5e couldn't have reached it's goals without embracing that. [/QUOTE]

Verification