Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6647530" data-attributes="member: 996">So, first of all, you're conflating freedom with options, second, you're missing that the system can't say that the DM &quot;MUST&quot; do something.&nbsp; Well, it can say it, it's just powerless to enforce it. So if you have 10 canned options, or the option of just making something up yourself, you have 11 options.&nbsp; If you have 100 canned options, and the option of just making up something yourself, you have 101 options.&nbsp; I think what you're trying to get at is a sort of 'less is more' philosophy, which isn't innate wrong (or right), but is more of a personal thing.&nbsp; &nbsp;There's no need to stick to only explicit options, in /any/ game.&nbsp; That's why more explicit options is more options - because the option of not using them was always there.&nbsp; And there's plenty of instances where 5e decides to go that way, instead of leaving everything undefined.&nbsp; Spells for instance, it devotes a large portion of PH pagecount to spells, when it could have gone and presented some kind of freeform DM-ruling-driven verb/object system like Ars Magica, and let the player describe the spell they're trying to cast and the DM describe the results of the attempt, calling for a Spellcraft roll of whatever DC seemed reasonable if he wanted.Why didn't D&amp;D go all the way and make everything as vague as checks (or even less defined, still)?&nbsp; Because 5e isn't really trying to be rules-lite, it's trying to be familiar to D&amp;Ders across edition preferences, and D&amp;D had no skill system at all, initially, then tried o na new with each later ed.&nbsp; So a desultory, vague system doesn't impede anyone's sense of familiarity with the game, while a detailed rank-based system, for instance, might have.I get that you're being zealous in defending 5e from an imagined slight, but it's really a non-issue.&nbsp; 5e isn't trying to be the best D&amp;D ever, just trying to be familiarly, identifiably D&amp;D - and succeeding brilliantly.&nbsp; Just because 5e's slightly incoherent combination of rules-lite 'skill' checks with rules-heavy spell lists, profoundly abstract hps with relatively concrete healing, and so forth might not be the best possible or most consistent way to design a good RPG doesn't mean it's not the best way to design a game to make it recognizeably, /really/ D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6647530, member: 996"] So, first of all, you're conflating freedom with options, second, you're missing that the system can't say that the DM "MUST" do something. Well, it can say it, it's just powerless to enforce it. So if you have 10 canned options, or the option of just making something up yourself, you have 11 options. If you have 100 canned options, and the option of just making up something yourself, you have 101 options. I think what you're trying to get at is a sort of 'less is more' philosophy, which isn't innate wrong (or right), but is more of a personal thing. There's no need to stick to only explicit options, in /any/ game. That's why more explicit options is more options - because the option of not using them was always there. And there's plenty of instances where 5e decides to go that way, instead of leaving everything undefined. Spells for instance, it devotes a large portion of PH pagecount to spells, when it could have gone and presented some kind of freeform DM-ruling-driven verb/object system like Ars Magica, and let the player describe the spell they're trying to cast and the DM describe the results of the attempt, calling for a Spellcraft roll of whatever DC seemed reasonable if he wanted. Why didn't D&D go all the way and make everything as vague as checks (or even less defined, still)? Because 5e isn't really trying to be rules-lite, it's trying to be familiar to D&Ders across edition preferences, and D&D had no skill system at all, initially, then tried o na new with each later ed. So a desultory, vague system doesn't impede anyone's sense of familiarity with the game, while a detailed rank-based system, for instance, might have. I get that you're being zealous in defending 5e from an imagined slight, but it's really a non-issue. 5e isn't trying to be the best D&D ever, just trying to be familiarly, identifiably D&D - and succeeding brilliantly. Just because 5e's slightly incoherent combination of rules-lite 'skill' checks with rules-heavy spell lists, profoundly abstract hps with relatively concrete healing, and so forth might not be the best possible or most consistent way to design a good RPG doesn't mean it's not the best way to design a game to make it recognizeably, /really/ D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification