Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8582006" data-attributes="member: 7032025">That is a fair summary. The thing is that 5e is much more open and less restrictive than previous editions, much less prescriptive too. Some DMs, because they liked either the rulesets or the setting or previous editions, like to have fixed boundaries in particular about spells, not necessarily to rein in &quot;enthusiastic:&quot; players, but also so that their setting &quot;makes sense&quot; in their views of verisimilitude.And that is absolutely fine, and usually in agreement with the rules as written, it's just that those are actually much more open and&nbsp; generous in terms of possibilities offered to players. Not only that, but there is also a general &quot;benevolent&quot; attitude towards players, as proposed by JC as the lead designers, which permeates not only the rules as they were written, but also their intent.And again, it's absolutely fine to play more &quot;old school&quot; (I'm certainly not using that as a derogatory term at all), it's just that, contrary to the previous editions, the rules are not prescriptive in that direction.And in the end, a lot of the debates in these forums are around this, because although 5e seems to borrow a lot from 3e (and some great ideas from 4e), it's really a very different beast both in its intent and the way it's been written.And after that, no judgement, to each his own and all our tastes are valid ways to play, I completely understand people wanting a more &quot;tightly-written&quot; game for a lot of reason, it's just not what we have today, for the better or the worse (for me, it's definitely the better considering our style of play these days, but I would also definitely change to another system if I was to play with different groups or in a different style).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8582006, member: 7032025"] That is a fair summary. The thing is that 5e is much more open and less restrictive than previous editions, much less prescriptive too. Some DMs, because they liked either the rulesets or the setting or previous editions, like to have fixed boundaries in particular about spells, not necessarily to rein in "enthusiastic:" players, but also so that their setting "makes sense" in their views of verisimilitude. And that is absolutely fine, and usually in agreement with the rules as written, it's just that those are actually much more open and generous in terms of possibilities offered to players. Not only that, but there is also a general "benevolent" attitude towards players, as proposed by JC as the lead designers, which permeates not only the rules as they were written, but also their intent. And again, it's absolutely fine to play more "old school" (I'm certainly not using that as a derogatory term at all), it's just that, contrary to the previous editions, the rules are not prescriptive in that direction. And in the end, a lot of the debates in these forums are around this, because although 5e seems to borrow a lot from 3e (and some great ideas from 4e), it's really a very different beast both in its intent and the way it's been written. And after that, no judgement, to each his own and all our tastes are valid ways to play, I completely understand people wanting a more "tightly-written" game for a lot of reason, it's just not what we have today, for the better or the worse (for me, it's definitely the better considering our style of play these days, but I would also definitely change to another system if I was to play with different groups or in a different style). [/QUOTE]

Verification