Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5768437" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>Hello.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Nope. Not seeing it. If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..."</p><p> </p><p>But they didn't. they said exactly what the quote says. You are free to interpret it anyway you want though. Just as everybody does. But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone. And I'm certain it cost WotC customers. If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>The chances are it's young... On this I agree. But that's not how it's presented.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>There's that should again. Not everyone plays this way. The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying.</p><p> </p><p>By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail. I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game.</p><p> </p><p>The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it. And those styles were hardwired into the system.</p><p> </p><p>Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like <em>"should"</em>, "<em>avoid</em>", "<em>skip</em>", "<em>unfun</em>", etc., can make all the difference. It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness. It doesn't require a 5000 page book, just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this. (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either. I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.)</p><p> </p><p>I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose. It can describe them. Talk about how to identify your preference. And then talk about how to apply them to game play. And it won't require a 5000 page book.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Thanks for reading.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5768437, member: 59506"] Hello.:) Nope. Not seeing it. If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..." But they didn't. they said exactly what the quote says. You are free to interpret it anyway you want though. Just as everybody does. But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone. And I'm certain it cost WotC customers. If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided. The chances are it's young... On this I agree. But that's not how it's presented. There's that should again. Not everyone plays this way. The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle. I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying. By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail. I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game. The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it. And those styles were hardwired into the system. Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like [I]"should"[/I], "[I]avoid[/I]", "[I]skip[/I]", "[I]unfun[/I]", etc., can make all the difference. It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness. It doesn't require a 5000 page book, just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this. (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either. I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.) I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose. It can describe them. Talk about how to identify your preference. And then talk about how to apply them to game play. And it won't require a 5000 page book. Thanks for reading.:) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
Top