Search results

And it's my opinion that this is good--Since the negative version of this as 'It doesn't fit my aesthetic preference so you get screwed over' also happens less! It's also great that the baseline of power doesn't need 'buffs' from the DM to make the player feel safe.

I'm willing to play an arctic based campaign, I just don't care to make my character fit in an arctic setting.

I would have been a big fan if it was wildly different yeah.

Setting coherence is something the DM cares, I myself am fine just being 'there' as a lizardman in the arctic.

Indeed. But I'd be upset if D&D the system was a humanocentric, Conanesque game

Yes, this is good. Well in an ideal world at least--5e clearly hasn't entirely crossed that line yet seeing Martials--but in my view, there is now a more balanced power dynamic between Players and GMs through a combination of culture and rules. Also there are now games out there where GMs have...

Also I'd like to comment how rude it is to suggest that my view and preference came because WotC told me to; I was already deriding what few OSR elements there was in 5e even before OGL came into view.

I absolutely do not want my CoolStuff to be by the GM's beneficence, using and getting those CoolStuff is the very reason I play the system in the 1st place! Especially if that 'super common' comes from the GM already being experienced and knowledgeable! Maybe we should all just burn every rule...

Like I said somewhere else, I recognize that the current Play Culture has it's own demons and issues but if you ask me to choose between a better version of the Gygaxian/Old Trad style with less Killer DMs and them being higher-quality.... I would still choose the culture as it is now over that...

I very much think that low-level lethality is a bad thing as long as they're still treated as 'tutorial levels', if DMs want to be lethal I'd rather them be pushed to send Nazguls against Lancelots instead of sending Goblins against Hobbits.

There has always been a telling of a story, irrespective of what DnD was 'meant' for, I have no respect for Gygax in this day and age so why should his preferences influence mine? And whatever that goal was has always been shifting and changing over and over in the decades that it existed, the...

I was never mislead by WotC, that was my goal from the very beginning, I'm the part of the new audience that pushed for that advice in the 1st place.

Ah but here's the counterpoint as one of 'those' players; I don't care about being special or weird in-setting, I don't need to have a secret alcove or town of Tortles(for example), just let me be a Tortle. It's purely cosmetic and/or optimization based, it is your desire to make things bound to...

A similar thing happen that share Keith's feelings on; Detractors believe that 5e was already toeing the line at first but 5.5e had taken a step too far. With a further deprioritization of setting and verisimilitude for [Player Fantasy/Game Balance], which aren't truly opposing but the overlap...

Then I'll give the same explanation to those GM that many other players get "Don't write long, detailed settings"

I'm not saying to make a gary/mary-stu, just one that's less grounded. In fact, why is just straight up canonizing that the PCs are special in some form of lore way is bad? Other settings have the implicit view of 'This is how things are going until you, the players who have some meta but not...

Maybe they should just make settings where higher powered PCs make more sense then

Honestly, both. There's nothing eyecatching that makes me excited to use them from a medium glance.

Man these statsheets are uninspiring as all hell.

Nahhhhh, Gygaxian Naturalism existed for a reason.... Though I guess if you're calling Gygax one.....