Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5929626" data-attributes="member: 83293">I guess I'm still waiting for the stuff they talked about in their preview articles.   Which is modularity that would allow multiple groups to get something different out of the game.  Given the goal of uniting the editions, the fact that they didn't lead with that makes me wonder if they've done any real work on it yet.If anyone still thinks rules don't matter and that a GM can make any game work any way, then 4E should show them otherwise.  4E was excellently focused on producing a type of play and is a pretty clear demonstration that rules impact the play that is produced (even if I've played the game enough to now be sick of it).If "modularity" ends up only being covered by a 90s style Rule 0, then I think a lot of people will be sorely disappointed.And thankful you can't force me to be quiet about it either.  Do you have anything to say about rulings vs rules combined with a rules light framework like 0E vs rulings vs rules combiend with an extensive framework with ability checks, skills, traits, etc.,.?If the rules produce the play and people are getting together for a game, they can all say "let's use the combat maneuvers module.  And the extended background one.  And how about the fate bound heroes one?" whereas if it's all just guidelines for the DM to enforce in a rulings vs rules format, I think we'll end up back at the place where different people will be coming to the table wanting different things and not all getting the same thing out of their games that they'd want to.I think clear rules modularity can help form group concensus rapidly and efficiently whereas I've read enough horror stories about "the GM just makes it all work."I also know that there are tons and tons of players out there that expect that when you sit down to play a game, you play the game and not set the rules aside as needed.  It may be an approach contrary to what some ultra empowered DM proponents want, but I think it's out there.  I think 3.x catered to it quite a bit.Can't the multiple styles of play be better supported with rules modules that actually produce that type of play when they are used than hoping the GM rules the right thing at the right time? I would like 5E to be all that they talked about in the time leading up to the playtest.  Every article released makes me more and more doubtful that they can actually unite the editions, though.  Now I get the impression they're more interested in creating sort of a 2.5E and hoping it just appeals to everyone.Some players like the idea that things will be resolve in a way that everyone agrees to and see one person setting that aside as a form of unfairness.So does 5E go after the Pathfinder market share with this approach?5E actually already has a fair bit of 3.x's thoroughness.  The sections in skills about how far you jump, how far you climb and the like are still there, but moved into the movement section.I'm going to cede to them at this point that whatever they like about an older edition is a good thing and not try to fight an old vs new fight.  I like OSR games even if I don't like the DM setting rules aside at whim.  Probably because they don't have to set the rules aside, but make judgements on situations the rules don't cover.Rulings not rules - covers the situations the rules do not and leaves lots of space for such interpretation.Rulings not rules + lots of rules = broken expectations, 90s Rule 0 play and frustration for people who don't make a lot of effort to get on the same page right away.</blockquote>

Verification