Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6651385" data-attributes="member: 5834">Only as much as the DM wants it to. We've always played this way. This is a return to 1E and 2E for us.I say no all the time. You only have a problem if the players make it a problem. Railroading is a pejorative used to describe a DM that forces a path on the players. That's just bad DMing regardless of system. The DM always has limits on the game. It's a matter of how he constructs them and creates the illusion of a dynamic world.Irrelevant. It had a major impact on the D&D community and the stated desires of players wanting a new edition. It's always under the control of the GM or DM in any game that has one. Because the system attempts to create a dynamic resolution doesn't change that the DM is the one placing the obstacles in front of the player. There is no way around a DM having near complete control of a game. That is why a bad DM will do a bad job no matter the system. A good DM can do a good job with just about any system. The system is mostly irrelevant other than providing preferred options to players and DMs for encounter resolution. They have no more affect on the fiction than the DM incorporates and the players tolerate.I never heard talk of rule lawyering prior to 3E. I played with lots of different groups and at conventions during that period. I don't think the term was used amongst D&D players much. Maybe some other system you played had rule lawyers. DCs weren't even used in early editions of D&D. A lot of mechanics were percentage based. A lot interactions were hand-waved. Social interactions were almost solely the purview of the DM. He decided based on how convincing your role-playing was barring a few things like morale if you chose to use those rules. I'm very accustomed to the 5E style of play that places a greater emphasis on keeping the game going forward than knowing rules. Winging it was quite common during the early D&D days. The game didn't start to bog down with excessive rules until 3E. That was the edition that required you lug your books around and know the rules like an encyclopedia if you wanted to run the game fast.5E does have some optional rules in the DMG for things like 3E tumbling. It isn't interested in games where players lift mountains or hack down castle walls with their swords. It's a much lower key game meant to be played at fast pace with loose rules. If the DM thinks you need to make a roll, you make it. He should only do this when he feels the roll is for something exciting or important. If this isn't your cup of tea, 5E won't be for you. It happens to be my cup of tea. I like being to able to hand-wave things or decide immediately if I like someone's role-playing that a lie worked or that it didn't work if I don't like the lie they told. If my players don't trust my judgment, they shouldn't play with me. I don't think any player should play with a DM they don't trust to make the game fun. That's what it comes down to for 5E. You don't get to hold the DM to anything. If you don't like how the DM does things, you find a new one. If you're enjoying the game, you stick around. Anyone looking for a game with static DCs or a set world provided by the books is probably not going to like 5E. That may be the case for you. I'm enjoying the game. I don't have any problems with the lack of set DCs. I'll just set them myself. If I want a player to have a 60% chance of success, I'll make the DC that number. I can do that with the 5E rules. Not sure why others feel they can't. You can pretty much do what you want with 5E. You just have to put work in to make it as you like it.</blockquote>

Verification