Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobster" data-source="post: 5914580" data-attributes="member: 6693711">Yikes. Didn't mean to demean your play preferences. But what you said that you like, sandboxy and strategy and resource management, I've experienced and really enjoyed in 3E or 4E. I've played games that emphasized &quot;theater of the mind&quot;, and never used a grid at all, and I loved them. I've had wide-open sandboxes where the GM had no idea where a session was going to end up, and they were great. We've played games where a few characters were fantastically powerful compared to the rest of the party, and while I think that should be a conscious choice made by a group who knows what they are getting into rather than core assumptions of the system, I support wholeheartedly anyone who likes that style.When I say I think fondly of some of the &quot;silly&quot; aspects of previous editions, I mean stuff like system shock and teleportation mishap and weapons vs. armor tables. I think they are too fiddly and over-the-top for the modern mainstream gamer, but they are also extremely evocative of a certain playstyle and subgenre. And hell, they can be a lot of fun. So if they show up as modules in 5E I will be happy, but if they appear as part of the core rules without a disclaimer telling you how lethal and how arbitrary they can be, I think it will throw a lot of beginning gamers for a loop.But of course, that is my opinion and I respect that plenty of people disagree. I certainly don't mean to offend, or to condescend. Play what you like!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobster, post: 5914580, member: 6693711"] Yikes. Didn't mean to demean your play preferences. But what you said that you like, sandboxy and strategy and resource management, I've experienced and really enjoyed in 3E or 4E. I've played games that emphasized "theater of the mind", and never used a grid at all, and I loved them. I've had wide-open sandboxes where the GM had no idea where a session was going to end up, and they were great. We've played games where a few characters were fantastically powerful compared to the rest of the party, and while I think that should be a conscious choice made by a group who knows what they are getting into rather than core assumptions of the system, I support wholeheartedly anyone who likes that style. When I say I think fondly of some of the "silly" aspects of previous editions, I mean stuff like system shock and teleportation mishap and weapons vs. armor tables. I think they are too fiddly and over-the-top for the modern mainstream gamer, but they are also extremely evocative of a certain playstyle and subgenre. And hell, they can be a lot of fun. So if they show up as modules in 5E I will be happy, but if they appear as part of the core rules without a disclaimer telling you how lethal and how arbitrary they can be, I think it will throw a lot of beginning gamers for a loop. But of course, that is my opinion and I respect that plenty of people disagree. I certainly don't mean to offend, or to condescend. Play what you like! [/QUOTE]

Verification