Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Burnside" data-source="post: 9634775" data-attributes="member: 6910340">If I was just running one or two home campaigns for friends, we'd treat it like a salad bar and just pick and choose what rules were right for our small personal groups. And so rules changes wouldn't bother me at all, because I wouldn't be obliged to use any of them.But.As a pro GM, I run for hundreds of players per year and can't necessarily impose my house rules or customizations in every game. I generally need to adhere to a more-or-less standard set of rules to get lots of games up and running relatively quickly. For long-term campaigns, there is room to negotiate and customize, but to do that for every one-shot or short (2-4 session) campaign is impractical. Because of this, rules changes that I don't like are absolutely an issue. For players and DMs participating in public/organized/convention/in-store, etc. games, you can't change rules if you think they're dumb; you're kind stuck using them, because in settings like that, people need to be playing the same game and there are set expectations.I don't know that I am &quot;upset&quot; about the changes, but it is a fact that vanishingly few people out of my large group of (often quite casual) players ever expressed to me that they wished 5E was more complicated. 5.5 is more complicated than 5E, by virtue of weapon masteries, feats being core instead of optional, and other changes. It's still early days, but my initial impression is that 5.5 is overall a worse game for most of my players than 5E, because most of them are not - and never will be - interested in builds, system mastery, or optimization. Those that ARE interested in those things, which is probably 15%-20% of my players, generally love 5.5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Burnside, post: 9634775, member: 6910340"] If I was just running one or two home campaigns for friends, we'd treat it like a salad bar and just pick and choose what rules were right for our small personal groups. And so rules changes wouldn't bother me at all, because I wouldn't be obliged to use any of them. But. As a pro GM, I run for hundreds of players per year and can't necessarily impose my house rules or customizations in every game. I generally need to adhere to a more-or-less standard set of rules to get lots of games up and running relatively quickly. For long-term campaigns, there is room to negotiate and customize, but to do that for every one-shot or short (2-4 session) campaign is impractical. Because of this, rules changes that I don't like are absolutely an issue. For players and DMs participating in public/organized/convention/in-store, etc. games, you can't change rules if you think they're dumb; you're kind stuck using them, because in settings like that, people need to be playing the same game and there are set expectations. I don't know that I am "upset" about the changes, but it is a fact that vanishingly few people out of my large group of (often quite casual) players ever expressed to me that they wished 5E was more complicated. 5.5 is more complicated than 5E, by virtue of weapon masteries, feats being core instead of optional, and other changes. It's still early days, but my initial impression is that 5.5 is overall a worse game for [I]most[/I] of my players than 5E, because most of them are not - and never will be - interested in builds, system mastery, or optimization. Those that ARE interested in those things, which is probably 15%-20% of my players, generally love 5.5. [/QUOTE]

Verification