Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8381816" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, fine.&nbsp; Let's remove the offensive word.&nbsp; You're saying 5e supports survival well because it allows you to remove elements present in the system that actively fight survival challenges.&nbsp; I find this statement to be rather amazing -- a system supports something that it actively doesn't support because you can choose to ignore those bits.&nbsp; That 5e supports survival when your GM adds house rules to change 5e to enable survival challenges to work.This is my problem -- you are saying 5e supports something when, in actuality, individual GMs have to make choices about which parts of 5e (non-optional or variant parts, mind) to ignore because they actively trivialize those challenges. When I point out that 5e doesn't support survival because of the many effective ways that 5e provides to trivialize or eliminate survival challenges, it is not a defense of 5e to say that you can just ignore those parts and get survival back.&nbsp; This is a tacit admission that 5e doesn't do this well because it requires the GM do introduce changes to the rules to make it work.&nbsp; Neither does suggesting that 5e doesn't need to hold your hand and tell you these things make 5e better at supporting them or even change the situation.&nbsp; That's just you insulting people that point out, accurately, criticisms of 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8381816, member: 16814"] Okay, fine. Let's remove the offensive word. You're saying 5e supports survival well because it allows you to remove elements present in the system that actively fight survival challenges. I find this statement to be rather amazing -- a system supports something that it actively doesn't support because you can choose to ignore those bits. That 5e supports survival when your GM adds house rules to change 5e to enable survival challenges to work. This is my problem -- you are saying 5e supports something when, in actuality, individual GMs have to make choices about which parts of 5e (non-optional or variant parts, mind) to ignore because they actively trivialize those challenges. When I point out that 5e doesn't support survival because of the many effective ways that 5e provides to trivialize or eliminate survival challenges, it is not a defense of 5e to say that you can just ignore those parts and get survival back. This is a tacit admission that 5e doesn't do this well because it requires the GM do introduce changes to the rules to make it work. Neither does suggesting that 5e doesn't need to hold your hand and tell you these things make 5e better at supporting them or even change the situation. That's just you insulting people that point out, accurately, criticisms of 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification