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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Numidius" data-source="post: 7760528" data-attributes="member: 6972053">Let's take the "exchange of information" at the table as keyword and guideline, and analize WotC work by that.In Magic, the game is symmetric between the players, the "information" brought to the table coming from both their decks of cards' buildsIn 3e, given the asymmetrical traditional rpg type of game (one DM with full information "vs" many players with virtually none):  they provided a rigid and "bloated" rules framework to spread the required basic information available at any moment, in any table as evenly as possible, for both sides. Moreover providing players with lots of choices to be optimized in char-gen & advancement to create their pc builds, in order to (let's say) compensate the Monster Manual of the DM. In 5e they realized that equity, fair play, at the table could be obtained more easily by the "mere" consensus among people playing, not necessarily by rules overload.Fine. The problem I'm starting see in this approach, is that they are just redistributing the load of "information" available in the system only on one side, the DM side. Power gaming & rules lawyering, might not be the problem itself, the cause, but rather the symptom: a big (and for some: really bad) side effect of the Magic cardgame approach of 3e. I'd like to think that what these people want (me included, even if I am more of an immersive guy) is, in abstract terms, more "information" to operate more efficiently in the system/world/setting/game/whatever, and the only way would be to have this information to go from them to the DM also (and back again, of course). Thinking more in abstract, the conversation at the table is the medium, while the information is the content. Both sides should have the means to exchange valuable info to the other (valuable by having either mechanical weight, or agreed consensus, thus providing active actions, actual changes in the setting; things the DM would be willingly forced to reckon with... IMO). Going back to topic, I'd argue that 3e premise/goal/intention was fair in this regard, but in practice failed because of the cardgame mindset; while 5e just missed the point of said premise, only streamlining the practice itself at the table, without recognizing the underlying desire of a more evenly spread agency at the table (that I like to define by the exchange of interactive&proactive information). Now all the frame (the management) of the campaign, seems lifted from the players' side and loaded on the DM. I'm not saying this is bad per se, I'm only noting the shift. Does it make sense? Not sure if it does to me, anyway; but these are my thoughts emerged from following, with interest, this whole thread.</blockquote>

Verification