Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9245189">I think there is room here for us to have real discussion. At the end of the day, WOTC puts what rules they want in the book and that is up them. I was never fully satisfied as a GM or player with the inclusion of some of the more robust social rules via skills and many of the non-combat rules as well in 3E. I still played 3E. But over the course of that edition, I realized how much that stuff was affecting the style of play for me that made it very hard for me to run the Ravenloft setting the way I had with prior editions (and this became clear when I went back and ran Ravenloft using 2E). My issue isn't with inclusion, but I think it is better to make these areas of the game clearly optional rather than default. When it is default, it is an uphill battle to not incorporate these rules (both because peopel expect them there, and because it creates a culture of play). NWPs were fully optional in 2E, and that helped bridge style divisions. Most people I knew used them but there was no sense that you had to or ought to. And the game was designed to function with or without them. Importantly this is just my opinion. I don't expect WOTC to adopt my opinion, I expect them to listen to their play testers and determine for themselves what makes D&D work best at the present time.</blockquote>