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="prabe" data-source="post: 8280639" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Well, I was pretty sure, yes.I think there was a lot of GM-facing stuff (systems and advice) published in the 90s and probably early-aughts that prioritized things the way you're describing. I think most people now look at that as something of a nadir; players found it unsatisfying, rules and advice were written differently.A lot of the people picking apart 5E on these fora seem to me like generals fighting some previous war. Or, possibly, they're proving correct Faulkner's comments about the past.I do not think that sort of GMing is more-supported in the text of the rules than any other, and I think it's actually deprecated in some of the subtext. The adventures are a different thing, of course, and often published adventures--especially long ones--are really poor examples of what can/should emerge from play; even if a table is playing a long, published adventure, though, I don't think the rules are written in ways to encourage the kind of action-negation you're talking about.(That said, there's an "Adventure Flowchart" in the new Guide to Ravenloft book that is ... entirely linear, with no branches at all. That ... is not a flowchart, and it's a really crappy example of adventure/scenario design.)I think the majority playstyle in 5E (if there is one) is the long, published adventures. Given that "PLAY GUD" in that context means "GET TO THE END OF THE ADVENTURE AND BEAT THE BBEG" I'm not sure there's quite the conflict even there that you think there is--I don't really see the appeal, though, and I avoid such games if at all possible, so someone else would have to elaborate on that.</blockquote>

Verification