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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5744652" data-attributes="member: 6685059">I agree that it would be safer if a 4E DM  got player consensus to change rules if that would alter the expected playstyle.In 5E, we don't know which playstyle(s) will be supported. I would be curious to know why Monte and Mearls are talking about complexity dials and temperatures of the rules -- is this mostly about making a lite D&D vs complex D&D, or is this also about rules that are modular for a certain playstyle (4E style or Tomb-of-Horrors-flying-thief-on-a-rope or simulationist-immersionist).There are irreconcilable differences between  at least 2 opposing perspectives on the ideal D&D roleplaying  experience. CrazyJerome suggested that sidebars explaining the rules would help. I'm  not so sure it's worth the effort and pagespace. i.e., you could explain to  me until you're blue in the face why all spells cause damage+effect in  4E, but I'll still want to rip out the entire magic system and  substitute for a different one without the bloat and "sameness" and hope  that it's fair using a different mundane-magic balancing track.From what I understand of Umbran's perspective, D&D is inexorably  evolving in a gamist/complex/tactical direction.  OTOH, some people have accused Monte of being nostalgic for the old  days.For the split between the wannabe-amateur-game-designer vs  play-as-is-out-of-the-box, I don't know if it's as divisive (well, maybe  it is, who can predict) and good clear presentation may alleviate that  one way or another.Anyway, it's great to talk about *how* the rules are changeable from a default, but I think what matters more is *why*. Figure out the exact purpose first, and I assume the method will follow more naturally.</blockquote>

Verification