A frequent objection given against my rants against certain post-TSR trends in D&D is that my rants do not target the system per se, but rather table behaviour. That it is possible to use it in a different way and not go where the game is implicitly inviting you to go. I call this phenomenon of game invitation "system nudging". The basic idea is: If you have rules in the core system for how fighters may build a stronghold, then you will see this happening more often than in a system that does not make this part of its core rules. In other words, although the system is not necessarily telling you that you should  do this, it is nonetheless nudging   you in that direction. It's basically the system telling you how it wants to played. How often does this happen in Classic D&D vs 5e? The mortality rules for each set will give you a good idea. There are degrees of nudging, and types. Some are intentional, others accidental because the developers didn't consider ...

Game Balance is a totally different kind of fun compared to old school fun. It's more a fun-nel really, that basically seeks to minimize the parts of the game that old schoolers find fun. Gamers, generally speaking, roll dice because the element of randomness brings a level of excitement to the table. And they applaud creative thinking or player skill being able to make a crucial difference in a tight spot. Because it is fun. Because they are variables making the game more open-ended. Game Balance is the opposite: It is the premise that so long as the party manages its resources properly, they will be guided through a scenario of progressively more difficult encounters, each of which they should be able to defeat in turn and still come out with positive hit points, for a total combat experience that should be neither too easy nor too hard. If the GM knowingly presented encounters too strong for the party, that is seen to be GMing in bad faith. If they are too easy, the GM is e...