Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8381797" data-attributes="member: 16814">You're claiming that 5e does survival stuff pretty well, and pointing to your friends game, where they alter 5e by deleting the parts of 5e that actively fight against survival stuff.  This is what I'm getting at.  You are crediting 5e for having survival challenges that are good because your friend put in effort and choose parts to create a game that did what he wanted.  I'm saying 5e gets no credit for this -- 5e was actively fighting against this concept, and had to be modified.  5e, in fact, by your story, does survival challenges poorly.You then go on to continue to credit 5e for making GM's have to put in their own work and creativity to solve the problems 5e creates.  You point this out as a feature -- that 5e makes you put in the work, and that it should be praised for doing so, because some people find it easy to modify the game.  This is a failing argument -- you're acknowledging the charges against 5e but saying that those very charges prove 5e is good at this because you can just change 5e and fix them.  I don't understand why 5e has to beyond criticism to the point that we're saying that individual GM's altering the system to fix things is actually a feature of 5e and shows it does those things well.</blockquote>