Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dd.stevenson" data-source="post: 6085908" data-attributes="member: 6683099">Gotcha. It makes sense that you would find this message disappointing. Like you, I spend most of my game time out of combat. Like you, I'll be pretty disappointed if &quot;optional = not important&quot; is the tack they take.Maybe I need to go back and re-read the article, but that's certainly not what I took away from it. What I took away was more like: &quot;we will definitely not crap all over somebody's play style by putting 1e/3e/2e/4e-style exploration rules in core. Instead, we will put these rules in optional modules. Where they effing belonged in the first place.&quot; Which makes me happy because it tells me that they actually are listening and they understand that most of us just flat out have no interest in playing the game the same way.IMO 2e had a lot of clumsy mechanics, but liberal application of the &quot;optional&quot; tag was one thing it got right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dd.stevenson, post: 6085908, member: 6683099"] Gotcha. It makes sense that you would find this message disappointing. Like you, I spend most of my game time out of combat. Like you, I'll be pretty disappointed if "optional = not important" is the tack they take. Maybe I need to go back and re-read the article, but that's certainly not what I took away from it. What I took away was more like: "we will definitely not crap all over somebody's play style by putting 1e/3e/2e/4e-style exploration rules in core. Instead, we will put these rules in optional modules. Where they effing belonged in the first place." Which makes me happy because it tells me that they actually are listening and they understand that most of us just flat out have no interest in playing the game the same way. IMO 2e had a lot of clumsy mechanics, but liberal application of the "optional" tag was one thing it got right. [/QUOTE]

Verification