Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6243182" data-attributes="member: 5143">We did use it.  I was specifically arguing the same thing you are.  That allowing DM fiat to override the rules or just "winging it" is silly.  If there's rules, use them.Though, I'd argue that you don't necessarily need minis to determine how many feet an enemy is away from you.  You do need minis to determine things like "how many threatened squares am I currently standing in?" and "how many enemies does a 20 ft radius spell centered on the orc leader hit?".  At least you need them to be accurate in that number.So far I've found that the number of area of effect abilities is so low in D&D Next and there is so little need to know the exact positioning of enemies that it isn't worth the tradeoff of the time required to set up a battlemap, draw the room and move the minis around each round.  The ruleset is designed to work much better without minis.When I ran 3.5e...a number of years ago, I embraced every rule in it.  I used a battle map, I had almost every rule memorized and would make sure to look things up on the fly in order to make sure we didn't get anything wrong.  My players and I all loved that.  Which was my point, since I was replying to someone who didn't use a map in 3.5e.But there were SO many rules that it did bog down some game sessions.  After nearly 8 years straight of playing it, I was just sick of it.  Which is why I stopped using 3.5e.I have been reading through 13th age.  Though I think the game is a little TOO narrative for me.  I need a balance.  So far D&D Next has been providing that for me.  We'll see what the future holds.Different rules fit different games.  And if you are fighting the rules every step of the way you are normally fighting the players' understanding of the world.  Although the intent isn't there the effect is that you are taking away the players' knowledge of the world in the same way you would if you lied to them.  At that point not trusting the DM is understandable.  Find a ruleset that fits what you want to play and you won't cause these issues.  (And I'm glad that from what you've said D&D Next seems to be one such set of rules for you).Not sure what that accomplishes.  I certainly couldn't play a character who was a conman as his primary profession in a D&D game.  It seems rather...ordinary and repetitive:P1: "Well, we convinced the Orcs to attack the Goblins.  We tricked them into giving us 10,000gp as payment for information about the Goblins.  Now what?"P2: "Want to trick the Trolls into attacking the Ettins tomorrow?"P3: "Uhh, I have a charisma of 10 and no skill points in bluff or diplomacy...can we do something that isn't tricking people into attacking each other or trying to recruit armies?  I can't participate in that."I agree.  One of my friends used to formalize the process in his game.  He literally said that he didn't care what the background, alignment, or personality of any of the characters in his game were.  However, it was a requirement that each player write into his back story(or add it as a facet of his personality after the game begins) to have loyalty to the other party members and desire to adventure.  They could be evil bastards who would kill their friends for a nickel....but not THESE friends for some good reason.  They might steal from everyone they meet, but not from THESE guys.  They might have a master who could tell them what to do, but if a conflict came up between the master and the party, he'd side with the party.  If the party wanted to go on an adventure, you had to find SOME reason your PC wanted to go on the adventure.  Your PC could object to it, but as soon as the majority of the group had decided...you had to relent.</blockquote>

Verification