D&D 5E I don’t really care what rules the players use.

[Micah Sweet]

I know that setting verisimilitude is important to you, and all I can say is let it go, my dude. Let the glorious fun of gonzo fantasy wash over you!

You do you, but you don't get to tell me how to play my game, or how to have fun. Your playstyle is not somehow, "better" than mine, as you seem to imply here.

I'm sorry, I just really don't like the way you worded this. Sounded condescending. I'm going to assume you are trying to be light here.

 

[overgeeked]

You would probably be better off not doing the math and instead just winging it based on what the intent is. You'll never get a B/X MU and 5E wizard to jive, numbers wise.

You might be surprised.

 

[Reynard]

This

You do you, but you don't get to tell me how to play my game, or how to have fun. Your playstyle is not somehow, "better" than mine, as you seem to imply here.

I'm sorry, I just really don't like the way you worded this. Sounded condescending.

does not jive with this

I'm going to assume you are trying to be light here.

This is frustrating because I like interacting with you, but you did here what you do very often: you took a martyr's stance and assumed that anytime anyone says anything to you, they are being critical and attacking your preferences.

For the sake of friendly discussion and your own enjoyment of spaces like this one, I honestly, humbly suggest you try and follow that latter statement more often: assume the better interpretation.

For the record: it was a light hearted jibe.

 

[Distracted DM]

I didn't transfer a campaign over to A5e from another game, so these are not issues for me. Personally, I work very hard not to treat PCs and NPCs differently in the setting, unless its by their actions (never as a class). A PC mountain dwarf is not a different order of being from an NPC mountain dwarf. That sort of narrative difference really bothers me

That said, if it's an issue for your table, you should do what's best for you.

You see my difficulty, I think! How would you handle going from one adventure/campaign where dwarves don't have fire resistance (like previous D&D editions) to a new adventure/campaign where they do (a5e mtn dwarf culture) while the game being in the same setting?
My reasoning of the "the pc is different" let me keep mtn dwarves the same, but clearly something in this character's past made them resistant to fire. Because I don't know how I feel about the idea that growing up around a smithy now means that you take half damage from a red dragon's breath.
PCs already use different rules- they have character classes. NPCs, generally speaking, don't (in 5e).

 

[Micah Sweet]

You see my difficulty, I think! How would you handle going from one adventure/campaign where dwarves don't have fire resistance (like previous D&D editions) to a new adventure/campaign where they do (a5e mtn dwarf culture) while the game being in the same setting?
My reasoning of the "the pc is different" let me keep mtn dwarves the same, but clearly something in this character's past made them resistant to fire. Because I don't know how I feel about the idea that growing up around a smithy now means that you take half damage from a red dragon's breath.
PCs already use different rules- they have character classes. NPCs, generally speaking, don't (in 5e).

I respect your stance, but I simply don't see PC and NPCs as different creatures. The rules for NPCs tend to be more abstract, but generally I am against either side having an ability the other side can't have.

 

[Distracted DM]

I respect your stance, but I simply don't see PC and NPCs as different creatures. The rules for NPCs tend to be more abstract, but generally I am against either side having an ability the other side can't have.

Oh sure! I get that.
I'm curious if you have an opinion on the situation though, if you'd care to share

You run games in the same setting, say homebrew or greyhawk or FR, whatever.

You finish a campaign using 5e, where mtn dwarves aren't fire resistant. you start a new campaign/adventure, now using A5E where mtn dwarves ARE fire resistant.

Would you now give all mtn dwarves fire resistance, or would you strip out that resistance feature and replace it? Or would you do something else?
Would you consider that narratively/setting-wise, or just kind of ignore it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This

does not jive with this


This is frustrating because I like interacting with you, but you did here what you do very often: you took a martyr's stance and assumed that anytime anyone says anything to you, they are being critical and attacking your preferences.

For the sake of friendly discussion and your own enjoyment of spaces like this one, I honestly, humbly suggest you try and follow that latter statement more often: assume the better interpretation.

For the record: it was a light hearted jibe.

Sorry, I'll try to keep that in mind. There are a lot of people here who have an issue with my preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh sure! I get that.
I'm curious if you have an opinion on the situation though, if you'd care to share

You run games in the same setting, say homebrew or greyhawk or FR, whatever.

You finish a campaign using 5e, where mtn dwarves aren't fire resistant. you start a new campaign/adventure, now using A5E where mtn dwarves ARE fire resistant.

Would you now give all mtn dwarves fire resistance, or would you strip out that resistance feature and replace it? Or would you do something else?
Would you consider that narratively/setting-wise, or just kind of ignore it?

Well, I don't have a problem with mountain dwarves having fire resistance, first off. It would depend on whether or not a mountain dwarf's lack of resistance ever came up in the pre-A5e game. If so, it could easily be a narrative event, like a blessing from the Dwarven Gods or the like.