Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6994523" data-attributes="member: 996">Yep.&nbsp; Hardly surprising.&nbsp; 5e is meant to be that wonderful unicorn edition of D&amp;D that is 'for' all fans of all past editions.&nbsp; Sure, that's impossible, but it's still possible for it to become a little more so, for one edition or another, incrementally.&nbsp; So while the agitation for it to do just that in specific instances given fans are most concerned with is, well, agitating, it's also understandable, and not exactly a bad or wrong thing to do.&nbsp; It's particularly problematic with the modern editions - 3e &amp; 4e - because they were player-focused ('player entitled' or 'empowering' depending upon how you want to spin it).&nbsp; 3e had the whole Cult of RAW thing going, and 4e was decidedly clear/balanced, and both were intricate - all discouraging rampand modding and off-the-cuff rulings 'Dis-empowering' (if we want to spin it that way) DMs.&nbsp; 5e strongly evokes the classic game, and it's rulings-not-rules &amp; DM Empowerment angles are familiar to us fans of the TSR editions, and comfortable (fun!) to get back into the swing of using.&nbsp;&nbsp; But for those who started in the WotC era or really took to the philosophy of a modern edition, it can be less than satisfying.&nbsp; They want rules that they can more or less count on.Yes, it does.&nbsp; And, yes, it can. But, as anything beyond the standard game outlined in the PH is oh-so-optional, it needn't actually impact those already happy with just the existing options, at all.If you love it for the DM-Empowering game that it is, though, you're fine.&nbsp; Don't want it to be changed by rules-heavy additions that others desperately want, don't opt into any of those additions.&nbsp; That's the beauty of being so DM-focused, WotC /can/ provide what other players want, without inflicting it on those who want nothing more.&nbsp; I agree - if we assume that for the rest, the desire is present, but conscious.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6994523, member: 996"] Yep. Hardly surprising. 5e is meant to be that wonderful unicorn edition of D&D that is 'for' all fans of all past editions. Sure, that's impossible, but it's still possible for it to become a little more so, for one edition or another, incrementally. So while the agitation for it to do just that in specific instances given fans are most concerned with is, well, agitating, it's also understandable, and not exactly a bad or wrong thing to do. It's particularly problematic with the modern editions - 3e & 4e - because they were player-focused ('player entitled' or 'empowering' depending upon how you want to spin it). 3e had the whole Cult of RAW thing going, and 4e was decidedly clear/balanced, and both were intricate - all discouraging rampand modding and off-the-cuff rulings 'Dis-empowering' (if we want to spin it that way) DMs. 5e strongly evokes the classic game, and it's rulings-not-rules & DM Empowerment angles are familiar to us fans of the TSR editions, and comfortable (fun!) to get back into the swing of using. But for those who started in the WotC era or really took to the philosophy of a modern edition, it can be less than satisfying. They want rules that they can more or less count on. Yes, it does. And, yes, it can. But, as anything beyond the standard game outlined in the PH is oh-so-optional, it needn't actually impact those already happy with just the existing options, at all. If you love it for the DM-Empowering game that it is, though, you're fine. Don't want it to be changed by rules-heavy additions that others desperately want, don't opt into any of those additions. That's the beauty of being so DM-focused, WotC /can/ provide what other players want, without inflicting it on those who want nothing more. I agree - if we assume that for the rest, the desire is present, but conscious. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification