NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6075694" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't really believe that other editions lacked this. Certainly I've never felt like I didn't have genuine control over my PC's in any of the other e's I've played, and I don't detect any elements of 4e that enable PC control that other editions lacked.Every edition of D&D has had the basic rule: When a player says their character does something, that happens. So it sounds like perhaps this is about agency, then: the players' ability to dictate what is "believable" and not. 4e certainly has more explicitly character-facing abilities for players to dictate the way the world works (poster child: Come and Get It, but also the way Skill Challenges were open-ended). But this is a weakness of the game, too, because for some playstyles that obliterates engagement.Which brings us back to the point I made above: 4e's big weakness IMO was that it was monolithic. It assumed everyone wanted to direct the game and define the world and play the metagame. If it would have been more flexible in this, it might not have been the shortest edition in D&D history, and it seems the designers, in making 5e explicitly adaptable, may have realized this....and quite possibly it could be just about table communication, instead, with the DM setting clear expectations and the players making clear their actions, but I don't think that would be quite so extreme in most cases as to have the rules assuage fears of getting screwed or not agreeing on style.</blockquote>

Verification