What should one dislike about DnD5e mechanics?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:57 pm

I was perusing the DnD5e PHB this morning and, honestly, didn't run into much that I thought was awful. The game looked generic, and that's unfortunate, but nothing made me roll my eyes. If someone asked me its greatest sin, I'd say that it looks like 3e with less moving parts. That doesn't sound like an awful game, it just sounds like one that doesn't give me the kinds of fiddly designs I appreciate.

It's only been a casual perusal, though, so what am I missing?

Wulfbanes · Post by **Wulfbanes** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:12 pm

Most of the problems I hear voiced with 5e are how it doesn't manage to emulate any of the interesting things that the older editions did, and has dulled a lot of those experiences; Liches and Pit Fiend losing all scariness (magic) and being reduced to bruisers and brawlers. Dragons of collossal power are still petite, etc.

t looks like the leveling doesn't capture close to the scale expected from high fantasy games, which is counter-intuitive with the name of the game.

I believe the lack of any and all Stealth and Wealth rules and guidelines are considered one of the larger sins for the system by itself, regardless of comparisons to other DnD edition. So it's not a question of what is there that is bad, it's about what's not there which is bad by being excluded from core books.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:15 pm

Things don't go up to 11. They don't even go up to 5. Everything is stuck on the low end of the dial, to the point that it is solvable problem as to how many npc archers you need to shoot down the tarrasque, and it is a pretty small number. Like dozens of dudes, not thousands. The ultimate badass level 30 monster in the game will get crushed on the field of battle by the sling wielding militia of a mid-size halfling city.

There is in essence nothing for heroes to do. Their contributions are pretty much meaningless, which makes it hard to take the game seriously as a contender for the title Dungeons & Dragons.

Also, the worship of DM penis sucking is so extensive that most rules don't actually exist. Like the hiding example we discussed earlier, there aren't actually mechanics to resolve things. While sneaking, you can be discovered if you knock over a vase. But... what determines whether you knock over a vase or not? There are no fucking rules for that. It's just, if the DM decides that you knock over a vase and give your position away, that's tough shit. Also, the difference between being unseen, being undetected, and being unknown about is an issue that is raised by the rules, but there is no actual mechanical distinction there. Can people attack areas you might be in if they know you're around but don't know where? How would that be resolved? What the actual fuck?

The two go-to memes of how stupid 5e is are basically the Tarasque getting mulched by militia and the complete abdication of rules writing that is the hiding rules. I mean, most of the game is basically vaporware, but those are the two bits that have the most salience and traction.

-Username17

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 5:27 pm

No, they did go up to 11; just not in a way that anyone should be happy about ...
So 4e took the "playable" range that had previously existed from about levels 3-15, and stretched that over 30 levels, and chopped off the ends.
It appears that 5e is not only based around a much narrower range of play space, but they've also bent the curve down to meet the mud farmer end of the game. There is a place for games like that, but D&D isn't and shouldn't be that place.

Night Goat · Post by **Night Goat** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 5:43 pm

They literally go up to 11 - with a maximum ability score of 20 a maximum proficiency bonus of +6, and the removal of magic items, flanking and charging, +11 will probably be the highest modifier you'll ever get on a d20 roll. So, no one will ever be able to do anything reliably.

Then there's the fuckery of making players choose between feats and ability score boosts; you'll almost definitely play the human-with-a-feat variant, because otherwise you might not have a feat until level 12. Not that any class has more than two real race options anyway.

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:19 pm

Another issue is the substitution of basically all bonuses and penalties with advantage and disadvantage, and their non-stacking nature.

So, trying to spot something in dim light? Disadvantage. Trying to shoot someone at long range? Disadvantage. Trying to walk across a narrow ledge? Disadvantage. (Trying to walk across a narrower tightrope? Also disadvantage.) And those don't stack, so a rogue trying to shoot someone far away at night while balancing on a tightrope has...disadvantage.

Worse yet, a single advantage cancels out any number of disadvantages and vice versa, so if the above rogue is firing at a target who is unaware of him (and thus against whom his shot has advantage), all of those disadvantages go away and the shot becomes just as difficult as firing at someone 10 feet away on level ground in broad daylight.

Night Goat wrote:They literally go up to 11 - with a maximum ability score of 20 a maximum proficiency bonus of +6, and the removal of magic items, flanking and charging, +11 will probably be the highest modifier you'll ever get on a d20 roll. So, no one will ever be able to do anything reliably.

There are a few classes that get double proficiency bonus to certain things. Rogues get double proficiency to a handful of skills of their choice at mid levels (two at 3rd, two at 10th), dwarven Stonecunning is now "whenever you make an Int (History) check about the origin of stonework you add double your proficiency bonus," and there are one or two others, I don't have the books on hand. So on average a given party might, by 10th level, have one party member who can make a DC 15 check on more than two kinds of rolls without rolling.

But even with double (and half) proficiency available, that doesn't really add more mechanical variety. Your options for a given roll are:

Character has advantage, disadvantage, or neither.
Character has proficiency or no proficiency, and much more rarely double or half proficiency.
Character can add a die to a single roll (e.g. Bardic Inspiration is now "As an action, usable [Cha mod] times per day, give an ally a single die (d6 at 1st up to d12 at 15th) which they can add to a single d20 roll in the next 10 minutes," as opposed to 3e's Inspire Courage of "As an action, usable [bard level] times per day, your allies now add +1 to +4 to either all attack rolls/damage rolls/saves/checks (based on the song) until you get tired of singing.")

And that's it. No fighting for the high ground or attacking while hidden to get those small-but-add-up-fast bonuses to help against stronger enemies, no dedicated party support role able to pull his weight by enhancing his allies really well (not even through non-numerical buffs, since the new concentration rules means they can give out one buff at a time), no differentiating yourself from other people of similar level in your area of specialty based on feat/item/PrC choice, nothing.

Once you are proficient in a type of roll you care about and can reliably get advantage to that roll, you now don't care about positioning, buffs, or any other tactics because you can't improve any further. You might care about working on avoiding sources of disadvantage (like the rogue, who gets Sneak Attack if he either attacks with advantage or attacks a target with his ally adjacent to it and doesn't have disadvantage, so in a mostly-ranged party he wants to do more than just cancel his disadvantage), but considering that there are a bazillion ways to get disadvantage it's hardly worth the trouble.

fearsomepirate · Post by **fearsomepirate** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:31 pm

if you knock over a vase. But... what determines whether you knock over a vase or not? There are no fucking rules for that. It's just, if the DM decides that you knock over a vase and give your position away, that's tough shit.

If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions. And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

Modern tabletop games seem to rely more on having a generally applicable framework and the DM not being a jerk than on having a rule for every specific, conceivable thing. I think this is a good thing. Since playing some other games, I've become much more relaxed and open-ended in how I DM, and the players seem to have a lot more fun. So you could easily put together some stealth and dexterity checks to make this sort of event happen.

If you see an open-ended system as a chance to force the players to grovel to do anything, they won't come back next week. If you see it as a way to be more flexible with player input and also throw things at them they can't have possible read about ahead of time, it can be really fun.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:40 pm

fearsomepirate wrote:
if you knock over a vase. But... what determines whether you knock over a vase or not? There are no fucking rules for that. It's just, if the DM decides that you knock over a vase and give your position away, that's tough shit.
If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions. And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

I don't really want to get into Oberoni arguments about what a good or bad DM might or might not do in various hypothetical situations, but that knocking over a vase with no apparent die roll involved is literally an example in the 5e rules. Further, it's one of the only things the hiding "rules" have to say about, well, anything.

5th Edition Hiding Rules wrote:When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

Seriously, that's the whole thing. Your position is given away if you knock over a vase. If and when that happens is 100% DM fiat because there are no rules for accidentally knocking over vases.

-Username17

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:50 pm

So, system bloat is inevitable - otherwise this thing will have sunk by Labor Day '15. However, "system bloat" for 5e is going to come in 2 varieties:
(1) rules that should have been there from the beginning,
(2) turning advantage/disadvantage from "huh?" to "batshit lunacy".

As to #2, this thing is going to explode. I can see developing in one of two ways:
(1) advantage/disadvantage will cancel each other out on a 1-to-1 basis, opening up the potential of trowing around WW-size dice pools of d20s,
(2) you'll be adding a third die to your d20 roll, the size of which will be determined by the degree of (dis)advantage you have, which will add/subtract to/from the die result. (e.g.: "you have 2 degrees of advantage, add d6 to the result of your advantage die" or "3 degrees of disadvantage, subtract d8 from your disadvantage die").

None of this is "good", mind you. It's just how I see things going.

Of course I could be wrong; in which case the game stays as bland as cardboard all the way to the fall bbq.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:59 pm

@fearsomepirate:
Frank's actually right on this one. What you propose is actually all fine and good with a game that doesn't require you to buy 1000 friggin' pages just to start playing. The offensive part about that is that the majority of those pages are filled with shovelware fluff - they could have cut the # of pages literally in half, and still had the same exact game, and still had enough room in those 500 pages for necessary fluff.
Seriously, FATE has more/better structure than this, and it's 1/3 the size ... AND FREE!

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:30 pm

fearsomepirate wrote:Modern tabletop games seem to rely more on having a generally applicable framework and the DM not being a jerk than on having a rule for every specific, conceivable thing. I think this is a good thing. Since playing some other games, I've become much more relaxed and open-ended in how I DM, and the players seem to have a lot more fun. So you could easily put together some stealth and dexterity checks to make this sort of event happen.

Sure, you could put stealth rules together. And yours might be ok, because you've apparently had a lot of experience with crappy ones that have not been fun, so you can avoid those and just roll awesome ones now. And so can everyone else. And all of theirs will be as awesome as yours, for their particular group. Right?

Except that lots of groups, particularly new ones, don't have that experience to fall back on and will go with what's in the book. Which is fucking absent. So they might make something awesome, or they might make something shit. Or maybe they ask for help in them onlines and find someone else's stealth rules. Maybe they find your awesome set. Maybe they find the grognard one that's all fucking vases as far as the eye can see. Some groups will fill the void with shit rules because they don't know any better.

Maybe they have fun anyway, maybe they don't, but that is not an improvement over having written some of those stealth rules you claim are so easy to do and putting them in the book. Defaulting is an important thing when you can change the rules on your own. By defaulting to "nothing" and not testing a basic set of rules to cover what they claim the game can cover, they have shipped an incomplete product and are at fault for any game that fills in their holes badly because they didn't know better.

tl;dr - Fuck you and your "It's easy, I've got mine, I don't need any help" attitude. You are not the universe, and plenty of people could have used a non-empty default that worked consistently and passably well.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:06 pm

ACOS wrote:So, system bloat is inevitable - otherwise this thing will have sunk by Labor Day '15. However, "system bloat" for 5e is going to come in 2 varieties:
(1) rules that should have been there from the beginning,
(2) turning advantage/disadvantage from "huh?" to "batshit lunacy".

I, for one, I'm still waiting for the dicepools.

fearsomepirate wrote:So you could easily put together some stealth and dexterity checks to make this sort of event happen.

You're right! Incidentally, you'll also find you don't even need to buy the 5e books, for this very same reason.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:06 pm

fearsomepirate wrote:If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions. And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

Modern tabletop games seem to rely more on having a generally applicable framework and the DM not being a jerk than on having a rule for every specific, conceivable thing.

GMless RPGs are actually a thing, and they're awesome, and I make them.

The only one that's complete is one with subject matter no one really seems to care about but hey, I like it and am proud of it so there.

There are others as well: the highbrow fine let's play it anyway Polaris, the not so much an RPG Fiasco, the totally devastating Grey Ranks, the not-very-good-but-whatever Piledrivers and Powerbombs, the very cool but difficult to make into a meaningful campaign Rune, and others.

They're marginal in the market, but they're there, and as a concept they're awesome in that every player really ought to be engaged in the narrative, and there's no better way to learn how to get comfy weaving narratives than by weaving narratives. RPGs as a whole suffer from the gateway "who is the GM" problem: they must be conversant in the game, decent at running them, and not a jerk. I personally believe that GMless RPGs not only encourage more direct participation from players and consequently more involving storylines, but also conveniently eradicate the "who is the GM" gateway issues.

...

Anyhow and more to your point, no one expects an RPGs ruleset to cover everything with rules and adjudication; there's always a sweet spot between a rule and its disruption to narrative but provision of adjudication, against the desire to facilitate undisruptive narrative but still avoiding unnecessary grey areas that should be within the game's scope. Sneaking and hiding within a fantasy RPG is something that really should come with the game.

Anyway, you're right that this is a correctable issue. It's also embarrassing, but it's correctable.

The Tarrasque being taken out by archers, the limits on expectations of what constitutes high-level performance, and the general feel that the game proceeds while riding the brakes is not so easily dismissed. Blowing rules on hiding isn't a fatal flaw, but a bad sign. The rest of that stuff is pretty damn fatal to a game that's supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:09 pm

TarkisFlux wrote: tl;dr - Fuck you and your "It's easy, I've got mine, I don't need any help" attitude. You are not the universe, and plenty of people could have used a non-empty default that worked consistently and passably well.

This is pretty much my default position for any product that I'm expected to pay cash money for. If something doesn't make my life as an MC easier I'm not paying for it, full stop.

Drolyt · Post by **Drolyt** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:12 pm

fearsomepirate wrote:
if you knock over a vase. But... what determines whether you knock over a vase or not? There are no fucking rules for that. It's just, if the DM decides that you knock over a vase and give your position away, that's tough shit.
If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions. And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

Modern tabletop games seem to rely more on having a generally applicable framework and the DM not being a jerk than on having a rule for every specific, conceivable thing. I think this is a good thing. Since playing some other games, I've become much more relaxed and open-ended in how I DM, and the players seem to have a lot more fun. So you could easily put together some stealth and dexterity checks to make this sort of event happen.

If you see an open-ended system as a chance to force the players to grovel to do anything, they won't come back next week. If you see it as a way to be more flexible with player input and also throw things at them they can't have possible read about ahead of time, it can be really fun.

What a very bizarre position. I agree you don't need rules for everything and rules should be as simple as possible, but there are certain rules that you want fleshed out, else why buy a rulebook? Now what rules you want depends greatly on what kind of game you want to play, so while I don't need breakdancing rules in a D&D-like game I definitely want stealth rules. The thief class was introduced in the Greyhawk supplement to OD&D in 1975. The stealthy, trapfinding, backstabbing rogue is as iconic to D&D as the wizard, cleric, fighter, or indeed dungeons and dragons themselves. If your game cannot handle the rogue's shtick well it doesn't deserve to be called Dungeons and Dragons.

As a separate issue, rules are empowering even if Mister Cavern isn't a dick. If the rules say I can do something then I can. If they say I can't I can't. If they don't address the issue then it depends on whether Mister Cavern thinks it is a reasonable thing for me to do. This means that my character's ability to accomplish the task isn't really under my control any more.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:39 pm

One thing that gets overlooked is that it's just as important to know what a character can't do as much as what a character can do. People gloss over the 'can' do with pronouncements of 'don't play with a dick DM'. But this suggestion completely elides game situations in which someone doesn't want someone to do something else and the DM has to be a dick one way or another. If the party barbarian wants to go on a badass sneaking mission with the rogue, who feels that the barbarian has gotten enough screentime as-is, someone has to be disappointed; either the rogue is going to think that the DM is showing the barbarian narrative favoritism or the barbarian is going to think that the DM is cockblocking his character.

It'd be better if this disappointment was upfront and impartial.

Night Goat · Post by **Night Goat** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:46 pm

fearsomepirate wrote:If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions. And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

Modern tabletop games seem to rely more on having a generally applicable framework and the DM not being a jerk than on having a rule for every specific, conceivable thing. I think this is a good thing. Since playing some other games, I've become much more relaxed and open-ended in how I DM, and the players seem to have a lot more fun. So you could easily put together some stealth and dexterity checks to make this sort of event happen.

If you see an open-ended system as a chance to force the players to grovel to do anything, they won't come back next week. If you see it as a way to be more flexible with player input and also throw things at them they can't have possible read about ahead of time, it can be really fun.

People buy products so they don't have to make those products themselves.

I get the impression that bad DMs are 5e's target audience. The praise I've seen for it seems to be coming from old grognardy types who get pissed off when players have any agency at all. And I think it's going to backfire on WotC, because they really need to get the whole table on board with this. It's not 1974 anymore, the players have other options and they know it.

fearsomepirate · Post by **fearsomepirate** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
5th Edition Hiding Rules wrote:When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.
Seriously, that's the whole thing. Your position is given away if you knock over a vase. If and when that happens is 100% DM fiat because there are no rules for accidentally knocking over vases.

-Username17

I...sort of see your point, but I read that exact same paragraph as flavor, not as a rule to be parsed. Like if you roll to stay hidden, and you fail, I'd say "Oops, you knocked over a vase; you hear the guards stir in the next room." I guess it's kind of bad writing in that both of his examples should have involved player agency, so it could confuse a new player who doesn't understand that it's typical DM-flavoring-a-bad-roll type text.

None of the people I know who are playing 5e were actually bamboozled by this and started looking for a Knocking Over Vases section, though, so I think you're reaching here. It's a somewhat confusing example, not a fundamentally broken set of numbers.

Here's how the actual mechanics of stealth are outlined:

1. You hide behind or in or under a thing that allows you to hid from an enemy's sight. (Ch 7) It's obviously up to the DM to put things in the combat arena that can be use for hiding rather than having you always fight on the Infinite Empty Plane Of Flatness. Hiding is an Action, so you can't hide and attack on the same turn.

2. You roll Stealth. You are hidden from every monster whose Passive Perception you beat. (Ch 7)

3. If you are hidden from a creature, you have advantage on attack rolls, and he has disadvantage. (Ch 9) Advantage and disadvantage on rolls are straightforward.

4. When you attack, you are no longer hidden. (Ch 9)

I don't see what's fundamentally missing or broken here. You're right. The DM could decide to have you start smashing vases for no reason and declare that the green block on Page 60 constitutes a rule that allows him to do that, just as he could declare that Vecna has decided to show up for no reason and devour everyone's souls.

If there's anything broken about it, it's that a lot of players won't hide if it means foregoing their attack.

I don't think that's likely, and I doubt anyone who is playing 5e in good faith is reading p60 that way.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:57 am

Hey look, there is an X, can I hide behind it?

Tell us exactly where the line you draw is between "Obviously you can't hide behind a vase you idiot" and "Obviously you can hide behind a couch" is.

Then explain how the things directly on each side of that line are so obviously on that side that players will not basically just have to ask you, because their opinions might be different, and their opinions don't count.

Notice that you are playing mother may I when you fail either of those two tests.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:01 am

Never assume good faith as a substitute for good rules (or any rules). Through ignorance or mistakes or just good ol' fashioned fiat, that good faith will be tested and someone will end up unhappy. Having rules that aren't an empty set prevents that faith from being shaken because you can call out something that's against the rules.

And am I the only person amused by the Big T going down to a troupe of archers? I always thought he was a bullshit monster you just Wished away and moved on with your life.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:24 am

Inadequate system mechanics that call for constant arbitrary GM rulings don't just become a problem in the hands of a tinpot dictator out for player blood. I'm often called out for not being harsh enough, because I'm being constantly told to pull DCs and encounters from my posterior by crappy games. When really, I just want to exercise good sportsmanship, and have PC death be the consequence of a bad play, not because I pushed the button on the Infinite Orc Generator too many times.

So if the game is going to offer stealthy characters, it should also offer ways for stealthy characters to be stealthy without playing Russian Roulette. If there is no such system, then the rules for stealthy classes are about as useful as a Bear World playbook.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:18 am

If I ever suffer a stroke and, as a result, run 5Ed, then knocking vases over will be literally the only way you can fail stealth. Or shouting warnings, such as "Careful, don't knock that vase over!" Players will automatically succeed at stealth until they say "I knock a vase over" or shout a warning.

The stroke will probably result in me forgetting that statement, so link me to this post.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:41 am

fearsomepirate wrote:And, importantly, there does not exist a set of TTRPG rules than make a bad DM fun to play with.

Yes there is.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:17 am

A bad DM just makes Paranoia even worse than it normally is. And it's a shitty game to start with. Maybe full-contact LARPs are fun with bad DMs, as you get to hit them in the face with a 2-by-4. But that's more because assaulting them would be cathartic, whereas the only time you're going to hurt a DM you like is something that starts with "It sounded like a good idea at the time" and probably involves alcohol.

fearsomepirate · Post by **fearsomepirate** » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:50 pm

Kaelik wrote:Hey look, there is an X, can I hide behind it?

Tell us exactly where the line you draw is between "Obviously you can't hide behind a vase you idiot" and "Obviously you can hide behind a couch" is.

Then explain how the things directly on each side of that line are so obviously on that side that players will not basically just have to ask you, because their opinions might be different, and their opinions don't count.

Notice that you are playing mother may I when you fail either of those two tests.

]
I played more 2nd than 3rd (I really only played 3rd a few times, and as a cleric), but this is exactly how 2nd worked. The GM described the area, and he told you whether or not a bush, tree, statue, column, etc was the sort of thing you could use for Hide In Shadows or not. And he always resisted the temptation to start declaring that walls of vases started shattering for no reason at all.

Somehow, we managed fine.