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: 8274280" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The formulation I'm trying to put in here is:Let's design a modular game that is basically a toolkit with a considerable amount of GM authority and that requires a lot of interpretation and mediation in action resolution (Rulings Not Rules).  We're doing this because we want every GM to make the game their own because people complained that they felt 4e was such a holistically/tightly designed game that (a) it made it difficult to hack for them and (b) therefore it ended up creating significant homogeneity across all 4e tables (compared with D&D's legacy of massive variance from table to table due to house rules and hacks and all the rest).  Through this, we design heterogeneity and table ownership into the game.So someone then complains "but, if I go on the internet and ask for rules help, I get all kinds of different answers...and different GMs I play under rule differently about all kinds of stuff!"WotC's answer is "working as intended thank you very much!" <cue everyone in the WotC office bro-fisting>For sure.  But if you're complaining about what I wrote above, you're basically a 5e detractor because you're lamenting perhaps 5e's most fundamental design principle.  Bounded Accuracy, Rulings Not Rules, Natural Language, Modular Design, Table Heterogenity, Renewed GM Authority of Yore, Storyteller Mandate, Back to the D&D Tropes of Yore are pretty much the pillars of this game.Perhaps a few of those may not be liked by people who play the game, but several of those are so foundational to the design that to not like them would fundamentally mean not liking 5e.</blockquote>

Verification