Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9210673" data-attributes="member: 29398">If she's being fair, the DM can't really interfere with the characters chatting during rest any more than she could if the players just wanted to handwave the resting time.Well, yes and no.&nbsp; 3e most certainly rewarded specialization, no doubt about that; but hyper-specializing in something (which was usually the most optimal way to go) always meant leaving glaring weaknesses elsewhere; and if you didn't have others in the party to cover off those weaknesses you could get hosed in a hurry.5e, conversely, seems to want the players to make jacks of all trades; capable of turning their hands to anything while at the same time having few if any true weaknesses.&nbsp; Thus, much less need for party interdependence other than sheer strength in numbers.Given those options, I'd prefer the 3e approach.Tolerating each other's presence for long enough to get the mission done is sometimes the best one can hope for. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I've done this when the side chatter gets to the point where the game's been forgotten.&nbsp; Haven't had to do it in a long time, which is nice; but in the past there have now and then been characters who have blown their stealth attempts by loudly conversing about some strange faction called the Vancouver Canucks...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9210673, member: 29398"] If she's being fair, the DM can't really interfere with the characters chatting during rest any more than she could if the players just wanted to handwave the resting time. Well, yes and no. 3e most certainly rewarded specialization, no doubt about that; but hyper-specializing in something (which was usually the most optimal way to go) always meant leaving glaring weaknesses elsewhere; and if you didn't have others in the party to cover off those weaknesses you could get hosed in a hurry. 5e, conversely, seems to want the players to make jacks of all trades; capable of turning their hands to anything while at the same time having few if any true weaknesses. Thus, much less need for party interdependence other than sheer strength in numbers. Given those options, I'd prefer the 3e approach. Tolerating each other's presence for long enough to get the mission done is sometimes the best one can hope for. :) I've done this when the side chatter gets to the point where the game's been forgotten. Haven't had to do it in a long time, which is nice; but in the past there have now and then been characters who have blown their stealth attempts by loudly conversing about some strange faction called the Vancouver Canucks... [/QUOTE]

Verification