Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8576795" data-attributes="member: 6855114">And when I say that on the rules, we should stick to the core books, I get washed for saying that. If it ain't in the core books it does not exists as we have no common ground with splat books as you can never be sure if the person you're talking too has it.This is a discussion about how the game has change. Tables are very specific and we can't really make any generalizations. Unlike a discussion about rules, the changes in D&D are heavily influenced by each table. The basic rules have an influence, but the campaigns, players and DMs' habits and views even more so.We can have a bit of generalization, but it can not be assumed that it will be immediately so. In fact, when talking about the broad changes of D&D, we have to talk about the players and DMs. And each one are very specifics but some behaviours are more prominent than others.The players' agencies have been pushed more and more to prevalence over the years. The tools to control these that were in previous editions have been toned down while claiming to empower the DM. But the very tools that a DM had to use that control in soft ways have now been integrated into character's levels.3ed codified D&D and PF crystallized the player's agency mindset more than any other edition. If we fusion 3ed with PF, we are looking at almost 15 years in which players could rule as much as the DM by citing codified rules. But at least, the DM had some control over the power level of magic items, their availability (restraining construction or buying places). Thus limiting a bit the power a player could obtained. Yes magic items were assumed. But by adjusting them, the DM could manage their players' power to be above or a bit lower than what they could normally pull.5ed removed the need of magic items. With BA, they are now so powerful that even a simple +1 plate can become OP in the right hands and circumstances. +1 plate, +1 shield, Shield of faith + warding bond and haste makes for an AC of 26 and it is not counting the possibility of having +1 ring... Previously, these were not bad as their prevalence would decay over time and players would be looking for better magical items. Now with BA, these are OP in low levels, and quite relevant at top tier level of play. So controlling the player's power is reached by not giving these items. But D&D has always been about loot, rewards (treasure or other like recognition) but very much loot. With PC power built in directly into the classes this control of power from the DM is simply gone. And with the Artificer and his infusions, not giving magical items simply went down the drain... Say hello to the artificer with +1 plate and shield at a very early level.Then there is also the shift in players expectations and mentality. In previous years, a two page background was laughed at. Now... well we already had this discussion. Today's player pretty much assume that he has a say to what will happen to his character. Be it through background or consequence (or should I say lack of) coming from the actions of his character. Well, it ain't so. A player is the only that has a say in any actions his character is attempting. The results of his actions are solely in the hands of the DM and the result of the dice.Read the forum(s). How many times is the DM assumed to be a bad control/adversarial freak whenever in a thread the DM dare say no to a background? In this very thread, I said very early that I would restrict one background and got flamed. Yet, as more and more was asked, one of the poster found it reasonable. In previous editions, it would simply have been assumed that the background was not accepted for campaign reason and we would have gone forward. It took how many pages to finally move forward? We're still at it right now. Unlike some other thread, at least we kept polite and friendly.</blockquote>

Verification