Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5781056" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think a more-restricted, more-deadly version of D&D should be within the galaxy of D&D experiences, personally. And the OP did later retract that strident abolition of other generation options.Look, we all have different bugaboos. Me, for instance: I can't stand it when the entire rule for something is "Make it up!". It grinds my gears pretty fierce. Some people hate halfling wizards -- destroys the idea of halflings for them. Other folks hate balanced fighters -- fighters SHOULDN'T be as powerful as wizards, that's why wizards cost more XP to level up! This is what I think Monte Cook is talking about in the most recent Legends and Lore when he says:I get the sense that 5e will be a game in which these fairly quotidian debates are rendered moot because the folks who want things like racial level restrictions or different XP advancement rates can have them at their tables, without affecting those of us who want neither. And if that's somehow not good enough for people -- if they want everyone else who plays to be limited, too -- then, it crosses over into petty pointlessness, and they are clearly denied the right to tell other people how they should play their own games. I don't think there's been an edition that has embraced modularity like it seems 5e is going to. OD&D through to 4e all presented a "core" that was fairly extensive, such that paranoid DMs could banish all non-core materials for their games and fool themselves into thinking they were running a perfectly balanced machine. I don't think 5e is going to present much of a "core" at all. If you take Monte's statement at face value, it is assumed that your character goes on an exciting fantasy adventure, and nothing else. I fully expect the lightest version of the rules to be something like "DMs make up whatever they want, and players make up whatever they want, and sometimes you might want to roll a dice or flip a coin if there's a conflict." I don't think there's going to be a majority of DMs who find running that particular style of game all that rewarding. They're going to want options, they're going to want details, they're going to want to add complexity. And the moment they're adding even something like character races -- well, they're adding stuff that's "not core." I don't think we'll have very many 5e DMs comfortable with only the core rules, since the core rules will be very light and free-form.</blockquote>

Verification