Tony Vargas
Legend
"Bad rules make games good!""The system is incredibly bad... and it's deliberate so that the game is better".
It's not a new idea, it had a lot of currency back in the 90s, Storyteller design was said to be based on the maxim. The underlying idea is, bad system or good or no system at all, a great GM can run a great game, and a bad GM will typically run a terrible one - so the system doesn't matter, at bottom. But, a GM, even a good one, is likely to go ahead and use a system as presented, instead of running to his full potential in spite of it, unless the game is bad enough to spur him to ad-hoc 'fix' or ignore it.
In essence, games are crutches to get you to Freestyle RP.
It's right there in the basic resolution system. The DM determines whether the player's declared actions succeeds, fials, or is uncertain, checks & bonuses only come into the last bit. There would be litterally no point (not that D&D hasn't a long tradition of pointless mechanics) to having the mechanics deliver even the possiblity of an automatically-successful check, since rolls are /only used to resolve uncertainty./The problem is that it takes a high level of system mastery on the part of players and DM for this to work, since it's not really made clear in the rulebooks.
Mostly like because players of 3.x/PF expect such a thing, and 5e is not just for old-school 1e/OSR types.Finally - why would you bother having such a detailed proficiency system and DCs if this were the case? Like I pointed out above, have a list of things you're supposed to be good at and just flip a coin if things become uncertain.
Bachelor of Arts. Mearls has an actual degree in the art (it sure ain't a science) of game design.
Seriously, though: Bounded Accuracy.
Last edited: