Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9015010" data-attributes="member: 6877472">It seems to me they want the rules to have hard limits baked in.&nbsp; So heavy obscurement just says either &quot;no&quot; or &quot;penalties that cannot be obviated&quot; as opposed to the current state of the game, where the rules say &quot;well it's disadvantage but you can obviate that&quot; or &quot;the DM can just say no&quot;.Which the DM can, of course, always say no, but sadly, sometimes a group finds it hard to trust a DM who looks at a rule that says &quot;maybe&quot; and turns it into a hard no.&nbsp; Are they truly ruling in a way that makes the game more fun?&nbsp; Are they denying players abilities the game intends them to have?It's the classic debate- DM power trip or entitled players?&nbsp; Some people feel that &quot;hard&quot; rules do more to clear this sort of thing up than more loose, pliable rules, and dubious &quot;clarification&quot; from developer tweets.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9015010, member: 6877472"] It seems to me they want the rules to have hard limits baked in. So heavy obscurement just says either "no" or "penalties that cannot be obviated" as opposed to the current state of the game, where the rules say "well it's disadvantage but you can obviate that" or "the DM can just say no". Which the DM can, of course, always say no, but sadly, sometimes a group finds it hard to trust a DM who looks at a rule that says "maybe" and turns it into a hard no. Are they truly ruling in a way that makes the game more fun? Are they denying players abilities the game intends them to have? It's the classic debate- DM power trip or entitled players? Some people feel that "hard" rules do more to clear this sort of thing up than more loose, pliable rules, and dubious "clarification" from developer tweets. [/QUOTE]

Verification