Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8981863" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Fair enough. I mean, 2e retains a LOT of the more traditional (I would say, at least for early 1e, classic) 'machinery' and process of play. So, while it talks a lot about 'story' there isn't a ton of options presented in base level 2e to realize that on the character side. Later 2e though gets a LOT of options, they're just a hodge-podge kind of that isn't really implemented well at all. 3e just elaborated the heck out of that, so you can build ANYTHING, but most of those builds don't really work out of the box, instead the players and GM kind of had to pretend (like [USER=2093]@Gilladian[/USER] runs 3.5, but they stop at around 6th level mostly). 5e definitely fixes a LOT of that, and I'd agree that vis-a-vis 2e/3e it is offering a lot more viable PC options. I guess you could interpret that as 'neo trad', though what the blogger linked earlier was calling neo trad seemed a bit more radical, as his interpretation of trad is more like what 2e does. His neo trad is like "players pretty much run things" which frankly I never got as being an intended mode of 5e. 4e, maybe, to a degree, but definitely not quite as he describes it there either (though I'm sure it could be drifted that way).</p></blockquote><p></p>