NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Parmandur" data-source="post: 7799148" data-attributes="member: 6780330">System is ultimately unimportant in comparison to the people played with, but rules can get in the more or less, or be more or less elegant. The 5E rules allow for quick and elegant action resolution, without getting in the way.The point about "toxic DMing" is that a DM a player needs to be protected from is not somebody that I would play with, or seek to work around with game rules.The popularity of 5E is a sign of fitness for most people's playstyle. What WotC found, in the aftermath of the reception of 4E when they did rigorous research on how most people play, they discovered that while the WotC insiders and a vocal contingent of Con goers, forumites, etc. had been playing 3.5 in a manner increasingly like 4E that made the changes seem organic, the vast majority of people playing 3.x had actually been playing 3.x like Moldvay/Mentzer Basic D&D with a bunch of suggestions in the books to use or not on an ad hoc basis, as had been apparently the case with most AD&D play. So, 5E was built to fit the playstyle of the vast majority of folks, which is also why 5E burst Pathfinder's bubble, as the Crypto-Basic D&D crowd (the by-far majority playstyle, apparently) finally had rules that matched their play.This isn't neccesarily any sort of virtue, other than commercial. But for those of us who had been playing this way the whole time, it is a breath of fresh air, and very freeing. I'm not saying it is by any means wrong to prefer the 4E style, but I do find the ad hoc approach easier to improvise in play (which was the original point of the digression).</blockquote>

Verification