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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7041964" data-attributes="member: 6696971">100 % absolutely (and you know I feel that way because we've talked about it at length <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )5e runs hard the other direction (toward AD&D 2e) via (a) GM latitude/mandate runneth over, (b) text/procedure opacity, (c) heavy reliance on GM interpretation/adjudication and attendant spillover in action resolution, (d) metagame aversion, (e) and play agenda being informed solely by the overly broad "have fun" and "tell memorable stories" (intentionally without constraining/playstyle-defining micro-principles).  That is fertile ground for GM Force and Illusionism.  Not a coincidence in the slightest.  There is a hugely sizable portion of D&D GMs who cut their teeth on and then groomed the techniques of Force and Illusion. By their reckoning, its part and parcel to the trade of DMing Dungeons and Dragons.  For them, transparency, codification, lack of needing to be heavily involved in action resolution, and player authority is anathema.  And they were a large contingent that rebelled dramatically against 4e.All that being said, I was musing about the cognitive-bias-wrought irony of folks actually calling 5e noncomplex or "rules lite", not 4e.  While 4e is transparent, intuitive-with-minimal-effort, coherent, and elegant (leading it to be trivially run on virtually no prep and severely diminished GM mental overhead) no one could confuse it for non-complex or "rules lite!'</blockquote>

Verification