Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8381885" data-attributes="member: 16814">What's the benefit to the player for engaging these features?&nbsp; I don't see any, when they can be trivially reduced to not a problem.&nbsp; I know it's been cool to point out that the various spells take resources, but surely less than failing to deal with these features, yes?&nbsp; I mean, if I can spend modicum of effort x to avoid abundance of penalty y, why would I not?&nbsp; Even if I have the option to expend effort 2x or 3x to avoid it (spending coin on supplies, dealing with encumbrance, dealing with daily marks, risks of loosing supplies, etc.), why would I choose to spend more effort when there is no benefit other than &quot;hey, you get to engage this feature set that has universally negative consequences and no positive ones?&quot;I can use the 5e rules for a lot of things and have it not be 5e.&nbsp; For instance, I can import 5e initiative rules into 2e, but that doesn't make 2e 5e.&nbsp; Just using 5e rules is not sufficient for the game to be 5e.&nbsp; So then, what's the line?&nbsp; When do changes make 5e not 5e?&nbsp; Don't care, that's not at all my point.&nbsp; My point is that you're saying 5e supports survival challenges because it has some rules that support it and some rules that actively do not support it (fight against it) and since you, an individual GM, can choose to ignore which of these rules you want that this is still just as much 5e as a game that tries to use all of the rules as presented and fails to have good survival challenges.&nbsp; This is special pleading -- you're arguing that you can ignore anything that disproves your thesis while claim anything that does.&nbsp; 5e supports survival challenges so long as you use these parts and not those parts.&nbsp; This is fallacious, though -- 5e does not support survival challenges when taken as presented.&nbsp; Instead, what is requires is that individual tables use their own judgement to change those rules to support the game they want.&nbsp; This is the table's choice and is done because 5e forces them to do so by failing to provide this straight.&nbsp; 5e does not get to claim support for a thing so long as individual GMs choose which parts to not apply.&nbsp; That's the GMs doing it, not 5e.&nbsp; Let's please stop with this ridiculous claim that 5e is good at everything because you, as an individual, can do work to create new rules and ignore existing ones that enable a specific thing.&nbsp; That's you, the GM, doing this, not 5e.&nbsp; That 5e says that you can change it doesn't mean 5e supports it -- it's literally given you permission to do something you didn't need permission to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8381885, member: 16814"] What's the benefit to the player for engaging these features? I don't see any, when they can be trivially reduced to not a problem. I know it's been cool to point out that the various spells take resources, but surely less than failing to deal with these features, yes? I mean, if I can spend modicum of effort x to avoid abundance of penalty y, why would I not? Even if I have the option to expend effort 2x or 3x to avoid it (spending coin on supplies, dealing with encumbrance, dealing with daily marks, risks of loosing supplies, etc.), why would I choose to spend more effort when there is no benefit other than "hey, you get to engage this feature set that has universally negative consequences and no positive ones?" I can use the 5e rules for a lot of things and have it not be 5e. For instance, I can import 5e initiative rules into 2e, but that doesn't make 2e 5e. Just using 5e rules is not sufficient for the game to be 5e. So then, what's the line? When do changes make 5e not 5e? Don't care, that's not at all my point. My point is that you're saying 5e supports survival challenges because it has some rules that support it and some rules that actively do not support it (fight against it) and since you, an individual GM, can choose to ignore which of these rules you want that this is still just as much 5e as a game that tries to use all of the rules as presented and fails to have good survival challenges. This is special pleading -- you're arguing that you can ignore anything that disproves your thesis while claim anything that does. 5e supports survival challenges so long as you use these parts and not those parts. This is fallacious, though -- 5e does not support survival challenges when taken as presented. Instead, what is requires is that individual tables use their own judgement to change those rules to support the game they want. This is the table's choice and is done because 5e forces them to do so by failing to provide this straight. 5e does not get to claim support for a thing so long as individual GMs choose which parts to not apply. That's the GMs doing it, not 5e. Let's please stop with this ridiculous claim that 5e is good at everything because you, as an individual, can do work to create new rules and ignore existing ones that enable a specific thing. That's you, the GM, doing this, not 5e. That 5e says that you can change it doesn't mean 5e supports it -- it's literally given you permission to do something you didn't need permission to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification