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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7596781" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I mean, that's a very complicated question to answer. 4e and 5e are both very complex systems, and the issues that can arise by playing with a different set of assumptions are numerous, varied, and subtle. Ultimately, either game would work fine if run like the other, but there are lots of niggling little issues that can arise. For example, one complaint I see all the time about 5e is that players rarely spend Inspiration, and Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws end up ignored as a result. This is not something I experience, because players always know that a check is going to be required, the DC, and the consequences, so they are more apt to spend Inspiration because they don't have to guess how difficult a task will be or how severe the consequences for failure will be. There are plenty of other ways to address Inspiration and Background Features, but as Iserith talked about earlier, it's yet one more case of DMs relying on houserules and/or the social contract to fix issues they cause for themselves.And lest anyone take this as an admonition against such use of houserules and the social contract, if I went back to running 4e (which I have considered), I would probably run it more like I run 5e, because as I mentioned in another post, that creates the kind of gameplay experience that I want out of D&D, at least currently. Of course, I know that doing so would likely lead to a lot of those niggling little issues that I would end up needing to houserule around. It might ultimately lead to experience I actually like better than 5e. As I've mentioned, it's still my favorite edition of D&D mechanically. But I haven't ultimately decided to do that, in part because of the extra work I'd need to to to nail that feel that I get from just running 5e as-written.</blockquote>

Verification