Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 6652113" data-attributes="member: 20998">Another way to say the same thing is - &quot;D&amp;D 5th edition. Assembly required.&quot; Barebones and customizable to one person is sparse and incomplete to another. Incredibly adaptive to one is poorly designed to another.The linchpin of 5e is embracing that the DM controls ALL. And I mean Controls with a capital C here. Clearly the DM is always the one running the show in any game. In 5e however, this is sort of like the Force - it's what surrounds the rules and binds them together.Now that can be cool for some folks, and I get that. I'm a fan of tinkering myself, though more in the system design space than the GM fiat in the middle of a session space. But let's also acknowledge that this can be very uncool for some folks. And I get that too. I would imagine for some folk it's practically like buying an incomplete product, for $150 no less!&nbsp; Especially when you consider how vastly more &quot;wide&quot; the industry is these days. If you don't want to pick up the 5e Tinker Toy set and make your own game, you can probably find a perfectly good alternative that has you covered based on your specific needs.And while we're acknowledging things, let's just clear the air that its no more right or no more wrong to like 5e because there's &quot;assembly required&quot; or to dislike it for that reason.Personally I kind of struggle with the idea of running a game in a system that requires me to do more work to run it than other systems that let me do less work to achieve an experience that meshes with my wants. I don't need 5e for my GM fiat license and if I'm going to build out additional rules for a game, I'd just as soon dust off the game system I've on again-off again worked on for years now. And in fact, since I've got no game on the horizon, that's exactly what I'm doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tyrlaan, post: 6652113, member: 20998"] Another way to say the same thing is - "D&D 5th edition. Assembly required." Barebones and customizable to one person is sparse and incomplete to another. Incredibly adaptive to one is poorly designed to another. The linchpin of 5e is embracing that the DM controls ALL. And I mean Controls with a capital C here. Clearly the DM is always the one running the show in any game. In 5e however, this is sort of like the Force - it's what surrounds the rules and binds them together. Now that can be cool for some folks, and I get that. I'm a fan of tinkering myself, though more in the system design space than the GM fiat in the middle of a session space. But let's also acknowledge that this can be very uncool for some folks. And I get that too. I would imagine for some folk it's practically like buying an incomplete product, for $150 no less! Especially when you consider how vastly more "wide" the industry is these days. If you don't want to pick up the 5e Tinker Toy set and make your own game, you can probably find a perfectly good alternative that has you covered based on your specific needs. And while we're acknowledging things, let's just clear the air that its no more right or no more wrong to like 5e because there's "assembly required" or to dislike it for that reason. Personally I kind of struggle with the idea of running a game in a system that requires me to do more work to run it than other systems that let me do less work to achieve an experience that meshes with my wants. I don't need 5e for my GM fiat license and if I'm going to build out additional rules for a game, I'd just as soon dust off the game system I've on again-off again worked on for years now. And in fact, since I've got no game on the horizon, that's exactly what I'm doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification