Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7956981" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I've been playing since the '70s myself, and there is a difference between the rules/feel and the content. I agree with with your buddy Rob. I can't stand most of the OSR games, usually for one of two reasons. One is that a given set of rules misses what I see as the point of the earlier editions, and the other is that they try to turn a play-style or approach to game mechanics.Of course, my own version of the rules is what I would consider an OSR approach, but that doesn't mean anybody else who has been playing as long as me would like them. To me the core of the game is exploration. Not clever puzzles or tricks. Definitely not DM vs player, not resource management, and while I like a lot Gygax's adventures, and I like the concept of save or die, with the proper safeguards to make it viable within the context of the game. I still think the 5e rules are near perfect, or really about as good as could be expected, for a mass market game. I think it's brilliantly designed, and while there are plenty of flaws, for the average gamer those flaws are just plain irrelevant. Anybody coming to the game for the first time has no idea that LTH functioned differently in earlier editions, and is probably fully onboard that they can just rest for the night and move one. (The reality is, they probably don't think about it at all - it's just part of the rules).There is no right or wrong here, just different preferences. And the preferences of my players are always somewhat different depending on which edition of the game they started with, influenced by their other hobbies like movies or video games.I think 5e has a lot more in common with the MCU approach than the sword and sorcery that D&D was originally based on. Again, not good or bad, just what it is (at least to me).The other aspect that has lost me over the years is the mechanical/tactical aspects of the game. These are only natural as the complexity of the rules increases. But we aren't playing the game to "play a game" and master the rules/mechanics and optimize for those mechanics. We're interested in roleplaying a group of characters as if they are real people in a real world, and exploring the world, the characters, and their adventures. To us the rules are best if they intrude as little as possible, and serve primarily as a framework for the DM to adjudicate the action when there is a question of success/failure. That's why I'm still a big fan of the players not needing to know the rules (and why there are still a lot of "non-gamers" in my groups, many of which have no interest in rules, nor will never really learn them). Don't worry about them, that's one of the reasons I'm here. You focus on being your character and figuring out what you'd do under these circumstances. My job is to be a fair, impartial, and consistent referee when it comes to resolving activities within the world, combined with being one of the architects of the shared narrative between us.WotC wisely chose to design for the more mechanically inclined. And fortunately I love tweaking and writing rules so I can modify it to fit what we want to do. The reality is, my own rules are always evolving, so no matter what somebody else writes and publishes, I will tweak it. While they could have done some things differently that might have satisfied older players a little more, the design has shown to be very robust and works great as is. I think that the fact that the ranger is still one of the most popular classes on Roll 20 (I think), despite the fact that it also seems to be one that has received the most criticism shows that for the general gaming public, they care about such things far less than a group like us.</blockquote>

Verification