Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The "Simon Says" Approach To Gaming

Okay, I like 5e so far, I really do. I'm just as surprised as anyone.

What I don't like, however, is the shit that apparently has to be spelled out explicitly. For instance, we actually need text telling us that a piece of siege equipment is immune to poison and psychic damage .

Yes, we need to be explicitly told that an inanimate object cannot be affected by poison or by damage to the mind. 

Why, I ask? Is this the result of cheesedicks who say "The rules don't say inanimate objects can't be poisoned!" and DMs who don't have the cojones to say "No, you can't poison a piece of equipment. Try harder."

Is this the result of a fundamental lack of trust between DMs and players?

Are we as a species just dumber?

It's probably a small thing to complain about in the grand scheme of the world, but goddamn it annoys me. I don't like the "Simon Says" approach to gaming. Hey, the rulebook never says my character doesn't have laser eyes and a barbed, prehensile tail that does 2d20 damage....so that means I totally have that, right?  The rules don't say that I can't use my Intimidate skill to make a portcullis open for me. I mean, the rules also don't explicitly say that I can't talk to inanimate objects.

Alright, my rage is expended. It is what it is.

No comments:

Post a Comment