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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9471704" data-attributes="member: 93670">That was something that I felt was really missing as well.  The video felt like it was aimed towards GMs for a change & there were a few things that made me less concerned about their inclusion than I was originally.  Like several others have mentioned, I want to see the optional & variant rules that wotc folks feel most showcases how this new DMG it built with the GM's needs in mind by supporting the GM in ways that will make the lives of GM's easier without leaning on a sucking void of "just homebrew it" whilethe base rules designs against doing.I think that the value in setting scatter is more complicated than that.  Taking the time(and pagespace) to acknowledge the fact that there are a lot of settings with wildly different baselines even before the GM might be making one of their own with new & different baselines helps mitigate the friction that comes with the GM using a setting other than "the default setting".  --BUT-- success there very much depends on the rules subsystems & player options not being written in ways that are so monolithically focused on supporting "the default setting" that the rules (and PC abilities) fight the GM's attempt to use any setting with differing baselines.No major complaints about the video & some positives I noticed but still feel like there is a lot more to cover(like optional/variant rules) because of how exclusively player focused everything has been for so long☆. It felt jarring when Kenreck felt the need to turn away from talking about how the book is built for GMs in order to insert some excitement about using bastions on the player characters he creates.☆ I almost said "last year or so", but it's been a lot longer than that.</blockquote>

Verification