Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9165662" data-attributes="member: 86653">Oh yeah, same. I came up with AD&amp;D and B/X and a very set DIY and improv mindset of running and playing games. To the point where I'd rather have utterly minimalistic rules if any at all. My issue is the players constantly want to thump the book. I have zero interest in that.I guess we're different in that. My stuff was almost always pointed at frameworks. Like trying to figure out how they designed classes or monsters, so see the math behind things, so I could rebuild whatever I wanted from that base math or framework. Never really worked with AD&amp;D classes. The system for it they put out in Dragon didn't reproduce the core classes very well. But doing monsters was a lot easier and mattered a whole lot less. That's where &quot;just make it up&quot; really sings, the purely referee facing stuff.Maybe I'm just saying referee vs player empowerment in different terms. But in my experience 5E isn't a referee empowerment game. The players seem to vehemently object to that very idea. At least all the players I've had. For them it's RAW or nothing. Unless of course the changes give them more power. Then they're acceptable. You see this in just about every single thread talking about edge cases, rules interpretations, referee rulings, etc.Yeah, big difference. Without the player having to actively think of solutions, I don't see a point to playing. If it's all just there in black &amp; white on the sheet and the player just presses a button, there's no point. You could just program a computer simulation with all the numbers and hit start. There's no point in having the players or the referee at that point. The whole job is shenanigans and improving reactions to those shenanigans.I know tech in the standard definition, but I have no idea what you're referring to in an RPG context.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 9165662, member: 86653"] Oh yeah, same. I came up with AD&D and B/X and a very set DIY and improv mindset of running and playing games. To the point where I'd rather have utterly minimalistic rules if any at all. My issue is the players constantly want to thump the book. I have zero interest in that. I guess we're different in that. My stuff was almost always pointed at frameworks. Like trying to figure out how they designed classes or monsters, so see the math behind things, so I could rebuild whatever I wanted from that base math or framework. Never really worked with AD&D classes. The system for it they put out in Dragon didn't reproduce the core classes very well. But doing monsters was a lot easier and mattered a whole lot less. That's where "just make it up" really sings, the purely referee facing stuff. Maybe I'm just saying referee vs player empowerment in different terms. But in my experience 5E isn't a referee empowerment game. The players seem to vehemently object to that very idea. At least all the players I've had. For them it's RAW or nothing. Unless of course the changes give them more power. Then they're acceptable. You see this in just about every single thread talking about edge cases, rules interpretations, referee rulings, etc. Yeah, big difference. Without the player having to actively think of solutions, I don't see a point to playing. If it's all just there in black & white on the sheet and the player just presses a button, there's no point. You could just program a computer simulation with all the numbers and hit start. There's no point in having the players or the referee at that point. The whole job is shenanigans and improving reactions to those shenanigans. I know tech in the standard definition, but I have no idea what you're referring to in an RPG context. [/QUOTE]

Verification