Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.
on them for just not reading the rules
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20.
Okay this is just getting ridiculous and I’m checking out of this conversation entirely. You’re now just going with stuff that is either completely unprovable or totally anecdotal while I’m saying “Your assumptions do not reflect reality when the rules say otherwise.” We’re not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
Like yes dude. Some things might make you thing that one thing naturally comes after another but that is why the rules are there to say that the assumption is wrong. Your argument could be applied to so many things in DnD and if it came out as the dominant stance the entire game would fall apart as there would be no balancing and people would effectively be able to do whatever they want because they assume so. “Create water inside his lungs” type nonsense.
Have a good one but this doesn’t make sense to me at all to say "It’s badly designed because it clarifies something that I would naturally assume otherwise as that is the purpose of game rules." Take care.
Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.
Okay this is just getting ridiculous and I’m checking out of this conversation entirely. You’re now just going with stuff that is either completely unprovable or totally anecdotal while I’m saying “Your assumptions do not reflect reality when the rules say otherwise.” We’re not going to see eye to eye on this at all.
Like yes dude. Some things might make you thing that one thing naturally comes after another but that is why the rules are there to say that the assumption is wrong. Your argument could be applied to so many things in DnD and if it came out as the dominant stance the entire game would fall apart as there would be no balancing and people would effectively be able to do whatever they want because they assume so. “Create water inside his lungs” type nonsense.
Have a good one but this doesn’t make sense to me at all to say "It’s badly designed because it clarifies something that I would naturally assume otherwise as that is the purpose of game rules." Take care.