Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6650653" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, that example is how you might run it.&nbsp; Other DM's judgement about 'strong enough to challenge the barbarian,' might be different.&nbsp; So the 12 STR Kobold might get to roll.&nbsp; The DM would also be fully within his rights to rule that the Kobold won.&nbsp;It's just a mathematical consequence of Bounded Accuracy.&nbsp; The solution is the same as with the Kobold vs Barbarian arm-wrestling.&nbsp; The DM rules that the army's arrows bounce of the dragon's scales and it eats the lot of 'em.&nbsp; End of story: ruling, not rules.&nbsp;It is.&nbsp; And I'm embarrassingly pleased with that fact.&nbsp; I learned to run games using 1e, and creating variants and over-ruling the system and improvising were big parts of running it well.&nbsp; I'm comfortable doing that again (though, so far, mostly ruling &amp; improvising, not so much creating variants, as yet - maybe if I get a campaign going).&nbsp; In fact, I'm doing more of it, now, even when I run 4e, even though I don't really need to.&nbsp; But, I can see how it's uncomfortable for folks accustomed to following the RAW, something typified be 3.x, in spite of it's articulation of rule 0.&nbsp; Warning: American 'Football' analogy coming...From that point of view, the 5e resolution system calling for DM judgement every time is like 'punting on the first down.'&nbsp; It's the last resort, so do it first.&nbsp; Conversely, the 3.5 zeitgeist of sticking to the RAW even as your campaign goes down the tubes, is like running down the center on fourth and long.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6650653, member: 996"] Well, that example is how you might run it. Other DM's judgement about 'strong enough to challenge the barbarian,' might be different. So the 12 STR Kobold might get to roll. The DM would also be fully within his rights to rule that the Kobold won. It's just a mathematical consequence of Bounded Accuracy. The solution is the same as with the Kobold vs Barbarian arm-wrestling. The DM rules that the army's arrows bounce of the dragon's scales and it eats the lot of 'em. End of story: ruling, not rules. It is. And I'm embarrassingly pleased with that fact. I learned to run games using 1e, and creating variants and over-ruling the system and improvising were big parts of running it well. I'm comfortable doing that again (though, so far, mostly ruling & improvising, not so much creating variants, as yet - maybe if I get a campaign going). In fact, I'm doing more of it, now, even when I run 4e, even though I don't really need to. But, I can see how it's uncomfortable for folks accustomed to following the RAW, something typified be 3.x, [i]in spite of it's articulation of rule 0[/i]. [i]Warning: American 'Football' analogy coming...[/i] From that point of view, the 5e resolution system calling for DM judgement every time is like 'punting on the first down.' It's the last resort, so do it first. Conversely, the 3.5 zeitgeist of sticking to the RAW even as your campaign goes down the tubes, is like running down the center on fourth and long. [/QUOTE]

Verification