Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7572405" data-attributes="member: 82106">[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] is of course being accurate, and I'm not at all disputing that people can (and do) use these rules to run a game with increased ranges of input from players compared with 'baseline' D&D. However, they are ALL add-ons. There is an essential bedrock, which is Rule 0. None of these other things displaces that rule in any way. Nor are these other addons on an equal footing with core rules. They are not really playtested much, don't really have defined interactions with each other or other subsystems, etc. What I mean is, they don't form a part of the default way of playing or the default expectations of play for people playing 5e, in general. You won't find them in AL play, nor generally in tournament play, nor expected or accommodated in published adventures. Some of them are pretty widely used, to an extent, like TBIFs, but even in an ideal situation those have very limited mechanical impact on the game. IME of play, 4e was (the way we used it at least) much more amenable to and encouraging of a sort of story now type of play with reduced reliance on DM authority. So 5e actually represents a step backwards in that light. Its odd, 5e is more explicit about these features, but vastly less committed to them. They feel very 'decorative' to me, and in contrast the way 5e character abilities, items, spells, and many rules are vastly more reliant on DM interpretation actually tells me a different message, let the DM run things.</blockquote>

Verification