Search results

By people insisting everyone else change to suit them? No thanks. That's how new games come about, not new editions. And said change doesn't generally come from a desire to force others to comply to your preferences, especially if you're not a game designer or holding the purse strings.

The word "modern" is an indication of placement in time, not of quality. It is an era, not a spectrum of greatness. In short, I suppose I reject your definition.

So play your own game at your own table, or find a game that suits you better than D&D. IMO nothing's going to make it ok to force one's desires on a broad audience.

Not in my game. You have someone stay with the animals (maybe a hireling), or you risk them getting lost or eaten. Why? Because that happens in a logical world.

If two things are considered equal, it doesn't matter what order you put them in. I don't see how I'm misunderstanding you. You think modern is better.

If that can be done to my satisfaction I'm all for it, but I want rules to model the setting as accurately as possible within practical limits. Also, it's Clearbrook this comment that modern = better to your mind. I don't accept that as a broad rule.

But why? Why do you want the entire game to change for everyone to suit your desires? If the other poster to whom you were responding explained it, they've blocked me so I don't see it.

Perhaps neither of you (none of us, really) have the right to force their preferences onto others, whether we agree with those preferences or not.

To me that just sounds like a poor encumbrance system.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If modeling the setting matters to you, sometimes you create rules that look to the thing you're modeling first.

I'm one of those "fair number of people" who enjoyed '90s gaming immensely, mostly due to the amazing worldbuilding. I'm happy to add the intentionality myself if needed. To me the setting is more important than the rules, which IMO should just try to model the setting as closely as possible.

Less so than it used to, in the current WotC version. Another reason I see no reason to pay them for a game who's primary differences from the one I already own move away from my preferences.

If you have to make choices about what to carry and how much, it has impact.

I love that game! Not realistic in specifics, but the overall effect feels pretty verisimilitudinous.

No worries. There are plenty of games that don't bother with it, and it's easy to remove such rules at your own table.

Couldn't you just play a game that operates in your preferred approach already, or play D&D that way at your own table? Why does D&D have to change for everybody to suit your desires?

So it wasn't important in the specific style of campaign you were in? Good for you. Survival elements are always part of my campaigns.

Why not? So long as your rules for magic are consistent they can be perfectly simulationist. It's just preference.

I'm not saying cantrips are a worldbuilding problem (although infinite elemental damage from even the least experienced caster could be a setting issue). I'm saying my aesthetic preference is for magic to not be omnipresent, that sometimes you run out of juice and have to resort to mundane...

Last thing I bought was an A5e 3pp supplement a couple months ago, but I really want the new Exploration Manual for Star Trek Adventures. I live more worldbuilding (or in this case galaxybuilding) resources.