Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8382206" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sure.&nbsp; I both run and play 5e.&nbsp; I do it with minimal changes to the ruleset.&nbsp; I'm not going to pull a punch about how the system isn't perfect just because I enjoy playing it, though.&nbsp; The defenses deployed that amount to dismissing haters are denying actual issues in the system, though.&nbsp; Even the argument that it's easily solved for an experienced GM is sidestepping the point that the system, as written, has these flaws.&nbsp; It shouldn't be up to individual GMs to fix things -- they should be spending their time finding ways to make the game work better for them rather than papering over the holes it came with.I've played/run other systems that don't have these kinds of issues -- they work as advertised out of the box.&nbsp; I've tweaked them, though, but I've done it to better align it to my wants, not because the system needs me to correct so that it can do what it says on the tin.&nbsp; 5e suggests that rations are important.&nbsp; It does this by having a rule about how much they cost, how much the weigh, and rules about how much you can carry.&nbsp; It also has rules on how much you consume, daily, and what happens if you don't.&nbsp; Then it has lots of rules on how all of that is not really a problem -- spells, backgrounds, class features, magic items, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't understand the design philosophy that puts effort into saying something is important but then undercuts that importance immediately.&nbsp; Or the one that suggests that design issues like this are okay because permission has been given to change it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8382206, member: 16814"] Sure. I both run and play 5e. I do it with minimal changes to the ruleset. I'm not going to pull a punch about how the system isn't perfect just because I enjoy playing it, though. The defenses deployed that amount to dismissing haters are denying actual issues in the system, though. Even the argument that it's easily solved for an experienced GM is sidestepping the point that the system, as written, has these flaws. It shouldn't be up to individual GMs to fix things -- they should be spending their time finding ways to make the game work better for them rather than papering over the holes it came with. I've played/run other systems that don't have these kinds of issues -- they work as advertised out of the box. I've tweaked them, though, but I've done it to better align it to my wants, not because the system needs me to correct so that it can do what it says on the tin. 5e suggests that rations are important. It does this by having a rule about how much they cost, how much the weigh, and rules about how much you can carry. It also has rules on how much you consume, daily, and what happens if you don't. Then it has lots of rules on how all of that is not really a problem -- spells, backgrounds, class features, magic items, etc. I don't understand the design philosophy that puts effort into saying something is important but then undercuts that importance immediately. Or the one that suggests that design issues like this are okay because permission has been given to change it. [/QUOTE]

Verification