Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 4071783" data-attributes="member: 20239">As the originator of one of the posts that spawned the "reverse Trek rule" discussion, I'd like to point out that the comment wasn't as simple as "X rocks, X+1 sucks".  In fact, there was no edition suckery implied in my comments at all.  I just think the 1e-2e transition and the 3e-4e transition have a lot of points in common, not the least of which is a desire to rewrite the rules to break ties with a non-rule-related entity (in the case of 2e, it was Gygax's name in the authorial credits, in the case of 4e it's the stipulations of the OGL).  Both transitions also touted a need to streamline and simplify a ruleset that was too complex and unwieldy.The 2e-3e transition reversed a lot of that simplification and streamlining in the interest of spicing up tactical elements of the game (ex: 2e eliminated 1e's fiddly and complex initiative, facing, helmet and shield rules, then 3e reintroduced a lot of new fiddly tactical combat rules like flanking, AoOs, reach and 5ft steps).  I predict that 5e will uphold the odd/even pattern by reprioritizing granularity and rulesmastery over streamlining and heralding itself as a return to D&D's roots.I guess whether that counts as a Reverse Trek Rule or an extension of the regular Trek Rule depends on whether you like your RPGs streamlined or fiddly.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification