Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9116539" data-attributes="member: 7042497">This is one of the true strengths of 5e (or maybe just D&amp;D in general) I feel. Everyone knows it's a bit of a wonky system with a lot of legacy cruft, but a relatively rules-light foundation, with a strong tradition to pile things on top according to taste. Some of the prior editions did stray a bit from that flexibility and make too many assumptions about the style of the players. I think that's what soured a lot of people on 4th (which had so many good thing going for it - but delivered very poorly and thus the somewhat disastrous reception) - it required too much stripping away of core rules for some players.To me, D&amp;D should be a game where you can tweak and add. You can even remove certain parts without too much hassle (dual-axis alignments being one I've seen ditched the most). I do feel as of late, they've started leaning a bit too heavily into their &quot;multiverse of settings&quot; and not giving homebrew the attention it deserves. That is a road I don't hope they continue down. Every D&amp;D campaign shouldn't by definition take place in the multiverse - every homebrew setting shouldn't be assumed to be simply another world in this multiverse.&nbsp; Not WotC can force such notions upon the playerbase, but they can codify it in their published material to the point where it can end up becoming a point of conflict, and where some (often newer) GMs feel insecure about creating homebrew and how to integrate published non-core material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Golroc, post: 9116539, member: 7042497"] This is one of the true strengths of 5e (or maybe just D&D in general) I feel. Everyone knows it's a bit of a wonky system with a lot of legacy cruft, but a relatively rules-light foundation, with a strong tradition to pile things on top according to taste. Some of the prior editions did stray a bit from that flexibility and make too many assumptions about the style of the players. I think that's what soured a lot of people on 4th (which had so many good thing going for it - but delivered very poorly and thus the somewhat disastrous reception) - it required too much stripping away of core rules for some players. To me, D&D should be a game where you can tweak and add. You can even remove certain parts without too much hassle (dual-axis alignments being one I've seen ditched the most). I do feel as of late, they've started leaning a bit too heavily into their "multiverse of settings" and not giving homebrew the attention it deserves. That is a road I don't hope they continue down. Every D&D campaign shouldn't by definition take place in the multiverse - every homebrew setting shouldn't be assumed to be simply another world in this multiverse. Not WotC can force such notions upon the playerbase, but they can codify it in their published material to the point where it can end up becoming a point of conflict, and where some (often newer) GMs feel insecure about creating homebrew and how to integrate published non-core material. [/QUOTE]

Verification