Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8999024" data-attributes="member: 71699">Agreed. For me it is clear that D&amp;D is not distinctively hackable. It's objectively measurable that PbtA has yielded more new games than 5e, and from a designer's perspective the &quot;design language&quot; of PbtA is much cleaner and more versatile than 5e. FitD has stood up well and consonant with my own interests some of its basic methods are used in FKR. Fate is a good toolkit (as was Fudge.) BRP has some advantages.I value the distinctive differences between TTRPGs such as 5e and PbtA. I know that 5e is a workable and hackable set of rules from the primary evidence of my own experience and in view of the available published mods of 5e that have had success. And from the secondary evidence of&nbsp; a vast body of testimonials. I believe that 5e is sometimes understood too narrowly (i.e. what can be achieved with it is underestimated): in particular once one is operationalizing 5e under diversified principles.For me, we can treasure both. Regarding the OP, based on arguments on all sides over this threads, the answer seems to be that centralizing power in the DM is not a necessity. It's not inevitably good nor inevitably bad. It can have payoffs for some modes of play. It can get in the way of the play afforded by other modes. Choices can be made about it: it's not all or nothing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8999024, member: 71699"] Agreed. For me it is clear that D&D is not [I]distinctively [/I]hackable. It's objectively measurable that PbtA has yielded more new games than 5e, and from a designer's perspective the "design language" of PbtA is much cleaner and more versatile than 5e. FitD has stood up well and consonant with my own interests some of its basic methods are used in FKR. Fate is a good toolkit (as was Fudge.) BRP has some advantages. I value the distinctive [I]differences [/I]between TTRPGs such as 5e and PbtA. I know that 5e is a workable and hackable set of rules from the primary evidence of my own experience and in view of the available published mods of 5e that have had success. And from the secondary evidence of a vast body of testimonials. I believe that 5e is sometimes understood too narrowly (i.e. what can be achieved with it is underestimated): in particular once one is operationalizing 5e under diversified principles. For me, we can treasure both. Regarding the OP, based on arguments on all sides over this threads, the answer seems to be that centralizing power in the DM is not a necessity. It's not inevitably good nor inevitably bad. It can have payoffs for some modes of play. It can get in the way of the play afforded by other modes. Choices can be made about it: it's not all or nothing. [/QUOTE]

Verification