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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7168936" data-attributes="member: 996">Just assume I told you off for it.  I want to.I already want to go berserk anytime anyone puts credence in GNS or dissociate mechanics or any of the other stupid, counter-productive, labels that saw such heavy use in the edition war.  (Heck, 'edition war' is a 'label' that can set some folks off, but if you don't acknowledge that bad things have happened, they'll just happen again.) Complements are so rare on the forums, I'll take it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> One funny thing about this conversation is that I look at how you describe your desired style, and how I ran/played 4e, and don't feel like we had a lot in common. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Yet, I do get the same impression that 4e was, at best, last among equals when 5e was being designed.  There's lots of 4e in 5e, but it's in tiny bits, when it was the structure that made 4e what it was.  A game that had no details in common with 4e, but had a solid structure and clear/consistent/balanced rules would feel more like 4e than 5e or 13A do.But, yes, it is intended to be putty in the DM's hands, even if that does make a mess at times.  It's DM Empowerment.  'Make the game your own!'  'Rulings not Rules!' 'Classic feel!' are positive ways of putting it -  Negative spin is just as possible 'fragile balance,' 'needs to be fixed,' 'unplayable as written,' 'needlessly complicated' etc.  :shrug:  And, really, who needs any more negativity after surviving the edition war?  So, yeah, impose what you need to on 5e to make it work for you.  In your case, to make it more 'DM lite' do that work up-front, before the adventure or even at the start of the campaign, and get it into shape to run above-board.   Yeah, I participated in the playtest and did the surveys.  They never asked the questions they'd've needed to in order to find out what I wanted.  So, 'meh.'  5e was going to be a return to the classic game, with faster combat and smaller numbers - the only questions were around what made the classic game classic, and what could be paired away in the name of the other two goals.  The less-classic game was going to be covered in optional rules & modules.  3.x was, in a definite, if still inadequate way.  4e, not so much. First of all, there'd be no 'change' at this point, it'd be some triple-ripple-vanilla-road-monkey ex-post-optional nth-string module at this point.  And the reason is, of course, to have it rather than make it, and to be able to fairly smoothly use it with others sharing the preference.The other question is, why is it so important to deny those options that the game has provided in the past, to people who may want them, again, in the current edition?They're options, they'd be forced on no one.  They're non-core, they wouldn't change the face of the game.  With WotC farming out most D&D projects, page count and development resources do not make it some sort of zero-sum game.  Other business reasons are business reasons for WotC to consider, not reasons for fans on a forum to stridently oppose such additional options.</blockquote>

Verification