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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GameDoc" data-source="post: 6407779" data-attributes="member: 53915">So, let me start off by saying my purpose is not to start any sort of edition war, nor bait everyone into a DM vs. Player slugfest.  However, I am curious about something I have perceived in both tabletop and online play, as well as online discussions.I think some would say that 3e/4e was an era of "Player Empowerment".  Character building was given more options for customization than ever before and I know players could feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of choices and DM's could feel overwhelmed by trying to keep up with every possible permutation to ensure each character had a place in the setting and that rules were fairly adjudicated.  This led to a good number of DMs setting ground rules about what options were in and out at their tables and feeling forced into conflict with players who did not want to take no for an answer (which I think was actually a small minority of players, but most of us have nonetheless had at least one or two games with "that guy").  I don't blame the DMs or players for this, nor do I attribute any inherent inferiority or superiority to any edition.  It was just an outgrowth of the context, be it due to splat bloat, the rise of the interwebs, or generational differences.5e, by contrast, has gone back to a state of "DM Empowerment" or "rulings not rules".  Overall, I think this is a good decision as it cuts back on the need to have fiddly rules codified for everything and opens the space for common sense to prevail so long as DMs are willing to be open-minded and fair with their players.  I think (hope) it will encourage a bit more flexibility and creativity on both sides of the screen to make the rules work for everyone.  Players don't have as much fuel to rules-lawyer and DMs don't have a million ways to hit players over the head with obscure rules.  A bad DM has to own his bad decisions instead of appealing to the rules (which I guess is the DM version of rules-lawyering).That said, I do worry that some DMs, feeling unburdened and unchained under the new system, might rush into things without thinking it over and in some way seek catharsis at the expense of the player.  "You had your time, now it's our turn.  We'll show you how to have goodcorrectfun in D&D."In another thread here (which has gotten fairly contentious) regarding the fairness of a house rule, someone indicated a player who felt their character had been weakened as a result was wanting to play 4e.  Someone else pointed out that since the player was taking issue with a house rule, the player was actually wanting to play 5e.  That latter point stuck with me.  Isn't 5e supposed to be bridge between past editions?A friend of mine relayed to me that about two sessions into Lost Mines of Phandelver, the DM suddenly decided that rolling a 1 on attack risked weapon breakage because that was "old school".  While that's a valid house rule and play style, my thought was that if I were in that game, I'd consider spending starting gold on a backup primary weapon, but I'd need to know that rule was in play up front.Several times in the past few months I have seen DMs criticize the mindset of players, often with the implication they came up during the 3e/4e era if not stated directly.  "Sounds like you should play [3e/PF/4e]".  And at times, my thought has been that by the same token one could say: "Sounds like the DM should play 1e or 2e."I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players?  How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?</blockquote>

Verification