Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8641568" data-attributes="member: 6877472">There's a handful of 4e-isms that were rejected out of turn immediately by some people that I find it amusing when they come back later and go &quot;huh, you know, actually, that wasn't a bad idea&quot;.Bloodied, damage on a miss (there was a huge and almost violent group of people posting about this one during the Next playtest saying &quot;it didn't make sense&quot;), limited healing, skill challenges (overused in 4e, IMO, but occasionally useful), or minions.It's as if there was a curse on the whole edition, and people wanted to avoid the lot of it like a plague!&nbsp; I've had a second thought regarding 5e's modularity.&nbsp; I wonder if the &quot;rulings not rules&quot; approach came out of early discussions of &quot;plug and play&quot; rules modules.&nbsp; For example, the Stealth rules they claimed they had made in-house but didn't launch with the final product.Perhaps what they landed on was the idea to leave the game open enough that DM's could easily replace large sections of the rules with their own preferences, since I can't think of anything off hand that would cause 5e to collapse like a house of cards if you were to change it.Even bounded accuracy could be done away with, if you gave some thought to what DC's and AC's you wanted to see. The only problem I've ever had with this approach is there's little guidance to let you know how to go about this, and, well, there does reach a point where you feel like you're doing the developer's work for them- the effort required makes you wonder why you didn't save some money and make your own game, lol.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8641568, member: 6877472"] There's a handful of 4e-isms that were rejected out of turn immediately by some people that I find it amusing when they come back later and go "huh, you know, actually, that wasn't a bad idea". Bloodied, damage on a miss (there was a huge and almost violent group of people posting about this one during the Next playtest saying "it didn't make sense"), limited healing, skill challenges (overused in 4e, IMO, but occasionally useful), or minions. It's as if there was a curse on the whole edition, and people wanted to avoid the lot of it like a plague! I've had a second thought regarding 5e's modularity. I wonder if the "rulings not rules" approach came out of early discussions of "plug and play" rules modules. For example, the Stealth rules they claimed they had made in-house but didn't launch with the final product. Perhaps what they landed on was the idea to leave the game open enough that DM's could easily replace large sections of the rules with their own preferences, since I can't think of anything off hand that would cause 5e to collapse like a house of cards if you were to change it. Even bounded accuracy could be done away with, if you gave some thought to what DC's and AC's you wanted to see. The only problem I've ever had with this approach is there's little guidance to let you know how to go about this, and, well, there does reach a point where you feel like you're doing the developer's work for them- the effort required makes you wonder why you didn't save some money and make your own game, lol. [/QUOTE]

Verification