Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7701544" data-attributes="member: 996">They were - well, the former was a sub-set of the latter.  D&D was traditionally tricky to DM, DMing was more of an art than a science, say.  Changing that was one of many attempts to make the game better that ended up sending some fans into paroxysms of nerdrage for, as I put it "disrespecting the game's history."  (I think that's a reasonably nice way to put it, sorry if it bothers anyone.)  The DM-player dynamic in D&D prior to 4e was simply different, and opening that dynamic to change - among other things - triggered some very negative reactions.  5e encourages a DM-player dynamic more like that of the classic game. Sure, it didn't for you & your group.  I also found plenty of nostalgic D&Disms in both 3e and 4e - my second 4e character was a reprise of the positively cliche 'high-elf fighter/magic-user with a wand of fireballs' archetype from among my earliest D&D experiences.  Oh re-imagined, more sophisticated and lampshading a few things, but still a lot of nostalgic fun.  But, for others, the change in  basic mechanics, class balance, or even very basic labels, like spell levels being simplified to match the class level at which they were gained, were positively intolerable.  You can argue that the fault for that reaction lay with them, and I'd agree, but the edition war happened, and 5e had to react to it.So it's, y'know, 'reactionary.'  Ironic, perhaps, but it's working.Nod.  The basic, dead-easy, totally intuitive, same-number-of-same-level-standard-monsters encounter would have been a 'cookie cutter,' if it were the only thing.  It's wasn't.  Sufficient lack of familiarity with the system could leave one with the impression it was, though.I ran & played a lot of 4e.  It might as well have been a 'different game' (as it's critics often ranted) - there was so much going on in terms of player options at charge/level-up and in play, and there was so little to DMing it the DM could even start to feel like just another player.  I've known DMs to run 5e in a way that resembled 4e, but they did it by essentially running 4e - using 4e rules for movement, actions, &c.  With DM Empowerment, you can get away with that.But, at the same time, you can't afford to lose existing DMs - you especially can't afford to turn them against you.  And it did lead to remarkably rapid transitions from new player to new DM.  I saw it myself many time during the Encounters period, players quickly picking up the game, then moving quickly to picking up an adventure and running it.  But I was also very often the oldest guy at the FLGS.  When I wasn't, like as not, my fellow grognard would be there recruiting for Pathfinder.Decent encounter guideling bring greater predictability - for the DM designing the encounter.  Though, really, it's more a matter of reduced unpredictability - the only thing a DM, like the allegorical cat-herder, can really predict is that the players won't do what he predicts. <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=";)" />  That doesn't mean the encounters he comes up with can't be quite varied (and thus seem unpredictable to his players), just that he'll have a better idea of when he's created a probable rollover or a risk of TPK.That's deeply faulty logic.  Yes, D&D was fad in the early 80s when it was badly balanced & hard to DM, it didn't become any less imbalanced in the 90s, but lost virtually all of it's popularity anyway.  Broken = popular isn't even a valid correlation. Absolutely.  And more true the more encounter design tends towards art over science.It would be interesting.  But it might  encourage problematic play styles (the infamous 5MWD, which has always been a problem with D&D, and which 5e, expecting 6-8 encounters and having a more complex than ever variety of resource mixes, is particularly vulnerable to).I can't say that matches my experience, I don't see 3e's level of 'rocket tag' in 5e, and being outnumbered seems to be more problematic in 5e than it was in 3e.  5e, at very low level, does feel like classic AD&D, to me.  After that it's prettymuch up to the DM to try to mod it into what he's looking for.I would add:  don't hesitate to adjust them on the fly.It's a classic style - 'skilled play' - going all the way back.  Yes, the idea is that not only do characters get better by leveling, but players get better through experience.  So experienced players re-starting with 1st level characters will be more effective than they were their first time 'round and 1st level.  For most D&Ders, that cycle has happened many times, and there's only so many differences between one edition and the next for them to un-learn & re-learn before they're at the top of their game again.  5e encounter guidelines seem not to assume a lot of player skill (or closely related but distinct 'system mastery') but provide plenty of room for both to be developed and rewarded.  So it gets 'too easy' and the DM has to dial it up.  Not a new issue.  By the time that happens, the DM should also have enough DM skill & system mastery to deliver.</blockquote>

Verification