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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AmerginLiath" data-source="post: 6460959" data-attributes="member: 777">Regardless of some of the corner cases that one might find, what I really like about this sort of breakdown is the expectation of how WotC can now approach different campaign settings differently without really changing the ruleset. 2nd edition was great about the feeling of the world but often came up with odd new sub-rules, while 3.x often buried the feel of a world under the common ruleset (I can't speak too much on 4e, having only played a few games and not read the campaign books, but it seemed to be the case of trying to change the world to fit the mechanics, being explicit on a lot of things 3.x tried and failed to handwave).Looking at the options of magic level, economics, alignment, divinity, etc. built directly into the more flexible chassis of 5e and laying out how the pillars fall into place on genres like this means that they can make settings feel both like themselves and 5e with minimal fuss (I also love how faction rules replace 90% of the old plethora of world-specific prestige classes). As a result, you aren't going to need lots of 'rules' in campaign books compared to previous editions – much of that crunch is going to be style instead – so we can get more world info* in products, not just maps and stats, but good fantasy anthropology!(* For all those saying that we don't need more campaign books of old worlds, consider that the game is always bringing in new blood who don't have shelves of 2nd edition box sets. Even among older players, there's no guarantee of having older products: the first FR product I ever bought, even playing since 1987, was the 3.0 FRCS (still a gold standard in 'modern' campaign books, I say as the main whose old DLA fell apart from rampant over-reading as a youth!).)</blockquote>

Verification