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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6521763" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Sorry, I guess I was more or less asking for your commentary.  My sense of 5e's play agenda and how I would actually be running it, from a play procedure perspective and the output of those play procedures, is informed by all that I have written above (plus my experience of running every iteration of D&D and several systems outside of D&D and extrapolating from that).  Rulings Not Rules.  Natural Language.  GM being heavily involved in mechanical resolution.  The clear drawing back from 4e.  The saving throw, multiclass, and setting of DC paradigms from 3.x.  The advocating of fail-forward and the ability check system itself looking very similar to 13th Age (but without any actual conflict resolution framework nor any hard-coded win/loss condition).  Bounded Accuracy and internally consistent, world-premised challenges.  The Concentration mechanic meant to reign in caster utility and pre-fight buffing.  Ad/Disad as a low-overhead/minimal handling time tool for situation adjudication.  Inspiration and Bonds/Traits/Flaws.  On and on.  It presents to me a game that wants to be run as sort of an AD&D 3.0 meets 13th Age.Given that, I'm curious how the language of the Goals of Play section (instead of Rulings Not Rules et al) assists in informing the nuts and bolts of your play at the table?  Do you find it helpful because you feel that its lack of advocating anything specific (thus binding) further augments the empowerment of the GM that is inherent in the system?  Something else?</blockquote>

Verification