• PoTayToes@sh.itjust.works
    18·
    1 year ago

    So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing?

    Because having things balanced properly in regard to the myriad options that are possible in people imaginations is hard, especially related to combat. Improper balacing leads to people having a bad time, while having an established, fair ruleset lets the DM and the players focus on other things.

    No need for the framework to do balancing, because a good GM will do that.

    But at this point why even have rules? A “good GM” can just entirely improvise a system.

    • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
      2·
      1 year ago

      But at this point why even have rules? A “good GM” can just entirely improvise a system. On the other hand,. if you’re the slave to rules, are you even still the GM or just a refferee? It’s a sliding scale people fall on, honestly. 5e tried to have it cake and eat it too, insert itself in the middle. You could argue it succeeded, but that makes people naturally drift away from it in either direction. I just think we tend to forget the scale goes both ways and there are more options than Pathfinder with rules for everything.

      • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
        4·
        1 year ago

        You sound like you’re trying to say that GMs who run modules by the book aren’t real GMs, and that’s some gatekeepy bullshit.