Search results

Reminds me of Spelljammer, which mostly only had cannons if you used the Giff (I love the Giff!) But I'd still rather just have cannons, explosive extradimensional spaces be darned!

Unless you like spellcasters and/or you feel long rest resources add verisimilitude.

This why I see little value in focusing a campaign on pirates unless you're using Age of Sail trappings. I want cannons darn it! It feels wrong to me without them.

Yeah, hard to tell what's marketing speak and what isn't. It all sounds the same.

Not sure why that's relevant. If I were still playing 5.0 sunk cost would be reason enough for me to keep doing it.

I only speak for myself, just like the rest of us, but for me, this is The Way.

All of that assumes of course that narrative intent is one of your groups goals, or the game's. If you don't see collaborative storytelling as the primary purpose of your RPG play, then you need to find a different solution to the problem presented by the OP.

Fixing and/or banning problematic abilities is a way to go as well. Obviously I generally prefer the former.

What about ideas for fixing it? Is that helpful? Does it have to be the company?

Agreed. If these games didn't make enough money to keep going, they wouldn't keep going. You don't have to go the WotC "all gamers are belong to us" business philosophy to make a financially successful game. Every other company producing RPGs that isn't actually dying is proof of that.

A lot of the "general public" is still playing 5.0.

The prequels spent a lot of time at war too. Attrition and "war is hell" stories are absolutely part of that era.

That attitude could be entirely in keeping with certain versions of Star Wars. The Rebellion thought this way until a PC forced them out of it. A good Star Wars RPG with a good GM could handle both IMO.

For the record, I think a game company other than WotC (virtually any other game company) could make a very fine RPG using your suggested techniques. Cut the gorilla out of the equation and I'm on board.

I want to note that I think it's a mistake to say that these kinds of "reactive narrative" action opportunities given to PCs in the circumstance aren't a houserule. Quite frankly, that's not how the combat system works, so allowing it is a houserule, and one that can add a non-negligible amount...

Your table shouldn't have to focus on that. I still think those kinds of sim concerns should be addressed, at least optionally.

Hard to say. I'm pretty sure that's how you feel, but none of us can speak for other people.

Probably, but I'm talking about a better product, not a better profit margin.

What evidence do you have that WotC is at all interested in doing the sort of rigorous design and playtesting needed to make the game you want? It's not a matter of can the designers do it. It's a matter of will their corporate masters see the short-term profit they require to change course in...

Would have better IMO to make a separate Greyhawk book.