Possibilities are endless
-
It’s like people are saying “mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal”, which is technically true, but meanwhile salt is right there being ignored on the shelf.
I think you’re misinterpreting this discussion.
This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this!
Of course creativity and flexibility are not exclusive to D&D. This discussion is not about D&D vs. other RPG systems, it’s about the explicit permissiveness of D&D. Basically, some people consider the rules to be permissive (e.g. everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed) whereas others consider the rules to be restrictive (everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden).
My point is that the permissive interpretation is better for gameplay, and I think that argument would apply to any gaming system in general.
This whole conversation is at least using the words “DND” even if one could argue they’re not actually talking about DND specifically. Thus, I was making the point that if you do want a system that rewards creative players DND is not a good one.
What system are you thinking of that stands in contrast to dnd’s “explicit permissiveness”?
I’m not even sure what you mean by the “permissive interpretation”. Is that the Calvinball mode? Games can definitely go badly when it turns into an inconsistent, unpredictable mess. Games have rules so we don’t argue like children on the playground going “I hit you. No you didn’t. Yes I did. I have a force field. Well I have an anti force field laser…”
-
Sure but we have also lost things that you’d think someone would write down properly if only for the purpose of manifests or similar things. Like Roman concrete where all the recipes we had failed to note that you needed to use salt water specifically or how I believe it was British naval vessels had three standardized condiments which we know the first two I think it was mayo and ketchup but we don’t know what the third was we think it was probably vinegar due to its common use in recipes at the time but we aren’t certain. It’s often times the most mundane things that are lost, reminds me how in 40k it’s all but stated that the control runes for more ancient tech are probably just our symbols for power on/off or whatnot they just lost the cultural context.
It’s still a huge stretch to go from “this could possibly work, but there’s no evidence that it was ever used besides sailors often being drawn with eyepatches” to “ever single sailor on the ship wore an eyepatch, and everyone forgot why and also depicted most sailors as not having eyepatches for some reason”.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not D&D-specific, but one party member with Quietus and one with Obtenebration was absolutely nasty in Vampire back in the day. There have been several rulebook revisions since then, so I have to assume those powers either suck or no longer exist now.
-
It’s still a huge stretch to go from “this could possibly work, but there’s no evidence that it was ever used besides sailors often being drawn with eyepatches” to “ever single sailor on the ship wore an eyepatch, and everyone forgot why and also depicted most sailors as not having eyepatches for some reason”.
Oh I doubt they all used that but it could’ve been a backup/specialist method dependent on ship or crew member. It wouldve been enough that when combined with actual eye injuries which could’ve been caused by any number of things it got stuck in on a cultural level, it’s like how under shirts got labeled tank tops because enough tankers kept getting too hot in their tanks so they stripped down to their skivvies. Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in on such things, which when combined with ill records can cause a weird dissident of information.
-
Oh I doubt they all used that but it could’ve been a backup/specialist method dependent on ship or crew member. It wouldve been enough that when combined with actual eye injuries which could’ve been caused by any number of things it got stuck in on a cultural level, it’s like how under shirts got labeled tank tops because enough tankers kept getting too hot in their tanks so they stripped down to their skivvies. Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in on such things, which when combined with ill records can cause a weird dissident of information.
when combined with actual eye injuries
Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in
That alone is enough to explain our observations (the trope).
So, to summarize your point, if this happened but not very often, it wouldn’t leave any evidence. We have no evidence, therefore it must have happened, just not very often.
-
when combined with actual eye injuries
Doesn’t take much for memetics to kick in
That alone is enough to explain our observations (the trope).
So, to summarize your point, if this happened but not very often, it wouldn’t leave any evidence. We have no evidence, therefore it must have happened, just not very often.
Probably, there may be evidence if you cross referenced a bunch of old journals, possibly medical logs, and maybe familial oral traditions. But yeah without going through largely inane and scattered documents it’s probably one of those self perpetuating memetic things that pops up on occasion because for a short period of time an uptick in sailors with eye patches happened and it got stuck culturally.
The best you could probably do to actually disprove such a thing would be to find where the source was, which would in all likelihood come down to a certain model of ship or a specific cultural tradition. Hell given how commonly shit goes back to Odin it could be a lost form of worship that got wrapped up in with sailor folklore after the viking age.
-
They used their free object interaction to pick up the tile. They’d need another action to eat it. Though going by that logic, they could just eat it at the beginning of their next turn with the same result.
This is the type of shit I dislike about DnD.
In any system I write and run, you simply get 2 actions per turn. Action types are a complication that add nothing to the game. -
This is the type of shit I dislike about DnD.
In any system I write and run, you simply get 2 actions per turn. Action types are a complication that add nothing to the game.But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action. On the other hand, when you have different types of actions, it feels like a waste when you have one you haven’t used but there’s nothing even slightly useful you can do with it.
Pathfinder deals with it by giving you three actions, but the second attack is at a -5 penalty and the third is at -10, so you’re not giving up much by using one of your actions to move. It is a complication, but I think it’s useful. Though I think I’d prefer something a bit lighter on the rules.
-
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action. On the other hand, when you have different types of actions, it feels like a waste when you have one you haven’t used but there’s nothing even slightly useful you can do with it.
Pathfinder deals with it by giving you three actions, but the second attack is at a -5 penalty and the third is at -10, so you’re not giving up much by using one of your actions to move. It is a complication, but I think it’s useful. Though I think I’d prefer something a bit lighter on the rules.
But then you have to give up one of your attacks to move or do anything else that takes an action
Yes. That’s generally how it is. If you first have to run to your opponent to hit them, you can’t hit them as often as if you were already there.
If you shoot while moving, you will have a lower effective rate of fire.
But my actual point is: turn-based combat is always an abstraction. I like to abstract it a bit more than DnD does, simply to avoid wasting any game time on arguing about action types. -
Surely “grab tile and eat it” is a standard action, right? Letting that be a free action seems like a weird call by the DM…
It also involves lowering your guard, so should trigger AOps.
