Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7599617" data-attributes="member: 996">(as an aside, D&amp;D (typically the current ed, or maybe PF or OSR), is very often the only game a group can all agree on) but, no, of course not, not forced to play, forced to accept the central role (Empowerment!) of the DM.And, yeah, forced is definitely a loaded term with a bit of a negative connotation.&nbsp; But, hey being 'forced' to do the right thing or the best thing for the game experience, that seems a lot less negative to me.&nbsp;You may not care for the spin that's been put on them, sure, and maybe they're a tad disingenuous or exaggerated at times, but they are getting at very real differences between 5e/TSR-era D&amp;D and the other two WotC versions of the game.&nbsp; Until 5e, WotC's tenure with the D&amp;D IP had been marked by very player-centric rules and offerings. 3.x/4eE were very player-choice-rich systems, 3.x loaded the DM with player expectations that his monsters and NPCs would follow the same rules and the same level of build detail as the PCs, leveling the player-DM dynamic to a degree, 4e, while very different in approach, still pushed the DM off his pedestal a bit, lending itself to very in-the-open play with the mechanics an open book the players could audit pretty easily, and the process of DMing simplified and streamlined to the point that the role felt less critical &amp; central.5e's return to a more DM-centric attitude in system, presentation, and, thus, player expectations is a major accomplishment, metaphorically putting a genie back in it's bottle, even.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7599617, member: 996"] (as an aside, D&D (typically the current ed, or maybe PF or OSR), is very often the only game a group can all agree on) but, no, of course not, not forced to play, forced to accept the central role (Empowerment!) of the DM. And, yeah, forced is definitely a loaded term with a bit of a negative connotation. But, hey being 'forced' to do the right thing or the best thing for the game experience, that seems a lot less negative to me. You may not care for the spin that's been put on them, sure, and maybe they're a tad disingenuous or exaggerated at times, but they are getting at very real differences between 5e/TSR-era D&D and the other two WotC versions of the game. Until 5e, WotC's tenure with the D&D IP had been marked by very player-centric rules and offerings. 3.x/4eE were very player-choice-rich systems, 3.x loaded the DM with player expectations that his monsters and NPCs would follow the same rules and the same level of build detail as the PCs, leveling the player-DM dynamic to a degree, 4e, while very different in approach, still pushed the DM off his pedestal a bit, lending itself to very in-the-open play with the mechanics an open book the players could audit pretty easily, and the process of DMing simplified and streamlined to the point that the role felt less critical & central. 5e's return to a more DM-centric attitude in system, presentation, and, thus, player expectations is a major accomplishment, metaphorically putting a genie back in it's bottle, even. [/QUOTE]

Verification