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
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5991479" data-attributes="member: 6698278"><p>Let me say before we start this discussion that I appreciate the thoughtful approach you taken on these subjects. Agree or disagree on desired outcomes for 5e, I'd rather discuss something rationally and thoughtfully. </p><p></p><p></p><p>For me I'd like a big game where we all cut out what we don't like. That would be support. I'm not real concerned whether it's considered core or module. I am concerned that it be in Players Handbook 1. Also let me emphasize that I operate under the assumption that the group is unified. So playing various styles in a single campaign is no concern of mine. I think doing that would be a lot harder.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't agree with those that think the game can only support one style. Unless a person says "I'm unwilling to cut out what I don't want." If they say that then I guess they can't be supported along with someone else. I don't mind cutting. I don't want though to have to make up a bunch stuff just to use the game. If I do that why not just write my own. (In fact thats what I'm doing).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm in this camp except for sitting down at the same table with opposition people. I don't care about that. I don't see how if the warlord ruins the game that I can sit down with someone playing the warlord. I suppose in theory a warlord class could be devised that wouldn't offend anyone but it might also not energize anyone either. I'd rather remove stuff I don't like and keep the stuff I really like as get everything acceptable but not good.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For me to play a game I'd enjoy, I'd have to remove healing surges. I'd have to create a bunch of new classes that were not AEDU. I'd have to write an entire book of magic items that I actually liked. Now I'm being obviously broad here but you see my issues. I might as well write my own game or start with another game and houserule it. I really am not a massive 3e lover. If I was I'd be playing Pathfinder and not looking back. I'm expecting 5e to be better. But better in the tradition of the D&D I know prior to 4e than in the tradition of 4e. At least options for that approach.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would say allows for everything. I'm assuming for example that 4e people might get rid of the vancian wizard. If they have another good option for a scholarly bookish caster that plays the way they like then they will be happy I'm assuming. So the vancian wizard can reward me all day long because it won't impede those other people because they aren't using it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure because I'm sure I'm not even aware of all possible styles. At launch though, 4e removed the simple fighter concept and the complex wizard concept. It also seriously stomped on the simulationist style of gaming. And I am not meaning to offend by saying that. I'm sure 1e,2e,3e as far too simulationist for many.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe SOME things could happen at the same table. But when I say playstyle I'm talking more simulationist vs narrativist and those people don't even want to be at the same table. Sure, I could play the simple wizard and you could play the complex one. Nothing wrong with that if nobody at the table minds. Thats probably often going to be true. In other cases, it's likely to be a group decision no matter what. If I hate healing surges, it's not just that I hate them for my character, I hate them for all characters. Getting them off my sheet doesn't solve the problem.</p><p></p><p>I think the "dream" of uniting everyone at the same table is hopeless. I do think the "dream" of producing a game that many different styles can enjoy is possible. 100% of the styles? Maybe not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 5991479, member: 6698278"] Let me say before we start this discussion that I appreciate the thoughtful approach you taken on these subjects. Agree or disagree on desired outcomes for 5e, I'd rather discuss something rationally and thoughtfully. For me I'd like a big game where we all cut out what we don't like. That would be support. I'm not real concerned whether it's considered core or module. I am concerned that it be in Players Handbook 1. Also let me emphasize that I operate under the assumption that the group is unified. So playing various styles in a single campaign is no concern of mine. I think doing that would be a lot harder. I don't agree with those that think the game can only support one style. Unless a person says "I'm unwilling to cut out what I don't want." If they say that then I guess they can't be supported along with someone else. I don't mind cutting. I don't want though to have to make up a bunch stuff just to use the game. If I do that why not just write my own. (In fact thats what I'm doing). I'm in this camp except for sitting down at the same table with opposition people. I don't care about that. I don't see how if the warlord ruins the game that I can sit down with someone playing the warlord. I suppose in theory a warlord class could be devised that wouldn't offend anyone but it might also not energize anyone either. I'd rather remove stuff I don't like and keep the stuff I really like as get everything acceptable but not good. For me to play a game I'd enjoy, I'd have to remove healing surges. I'd have to create a bunch of new classes that were not AEDU. I'd have to write an entire book of magic items that I actually liked. Now I'm being obviously broad here but you see my issues. I might as well write my own game or start with another game and houserule it. I really am not a massive 3e lover. If I was I'd be playing Pathfinder and not looking back. I'm expecting 5e to be better. But better in the tradition of the D&D I know prior to 4e than in the tradition of 4e. At least options for that approach. I would say allows for everything. I'm assuming for example that 4e people might get rid of the vancian wizard. If they have another good option for a scholarly bookish caster that plays the way they like then they will be happy I'm assuming. So the vancian wizard can reward me all day long because it won't impede those other people because they aren't using it. I'm not sure because I'm sure I'm not even aware of all possible styles. At launch though, 4e removed the simple fighter concept and the complex wizard concept. It also seriously stomped on the simulationist style of gaming. And I am not meaning to offend by saying that. I'm sure 1e,2e,3e as far too simulationist for many. I believe SOME things could happen at the same table. But when I say playstyle I'm talking more simulationist vs narrativist and those people don't even want to be at the same table. Sure, I could play the simple wizard and you could play the complex one. Nothing wrong with that if nobody at the table minds. Thats probably often going to be true. In other cases, it's likely to be a group decision no matter what. If I hate healing surges, it's not just that I hate them for my character, I hate them for all characters. Getting them off my sheet doesn't solve the problem. I think the "dream" of uniting everyone at the same table is hopeless. I do think the "dream" of producing a game that many different styles can enjoy is possible. 100% of the styles? Maybe not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top