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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7582141" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Its almost like...I don't know...call me crazy...but system matters!As to the last style (we've discussed this aplenty), it is almost surely the most popular form of TTRPGing on the market presently (for a myriad of reasons).  During the playtest, I called D&D Next (which became 5e) AD&D 3e w/ some bolted on (meaning not integrated holistically) indie tech.  But its play paradigm is fundamentally centered around a heavily GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D type ethos with an overarching metaplot (my guess is that the overwhelming majority of groups, probably 4/5 or more, play 5e in an AP fashion).  At the lowest of levels, it can try to lean toward reproducing a neutral refereed, B/X skilled play, crawl experience, but the primary machinery of B/X isn't codified and central (though you can hack it towards it and hexcrawls are reasonably facilitated).  5e's  GMing ethos, the resolution mechanics, and the intentional design around natural language and "rulings not rules" aims toward lack of a tight/focused play premise coupled with "GM as lead storyteller" (not just through the anointment in the text, but by proxy of the requirement of GM judgement, rather than system, being the primary mediator of action resolution).  Consequently, 5e has 0 chance of producing a 4e, Dungeon World, Torchbearer, or Burning Wheel experience.  Put another way, "not taking a position on design" (as the 5e designers connoted in the midst of the playtest that 5e was supposed to be a modular toolkit where individual tables actually make their own game) is "taking a position on design."  So it should be no surprise that in the absence of clear design intent and focus (intentionally), a heavily GM-driven experience emerges organically from that primordial ooze (even if the text didn't back that notion...which it does).And this is no big deal and perfectly fine.  But its frustrating that we can't have cleaner conversations on such things.  You can actually tease out intent and play implications of aspects of design (from the broad, such as GMing ethos, to the narrow, such as handling failure).</blockquote>

Verification