Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6828405" data-attributes="member: 82779">In general, I agree with you.In specific, there are a few places where I either disagree, or where I feel some differentiation is warranted.#1 Non-traditional races and preferenceMy preference differs significantly from yours in this respect.  Neither yours or mine is wrong, because we're doing it right as long as we're having fun, but I also have to say that I don't believe that mine is any "less D&D" than the traditional preference.  As non-human fantastical creatures that are sometimes statted up as having inherent magical abilities (I'm thinking in particular of the race as class days here), elves and dwarves are creatures that are significantly alien from humans.  Sure, they follow the Star Trek "rubber-forehead" alien trope of looking almost identical to humans, and so they appear to be less different on a physical level, they are still rather alien to us.  I see the non-traditional races as simply an extension of the willingness to allow people to play creatures that are alien to them.#2 Fourth edition4e could have certainly done things differently than it did.  I have been round and round with edition warriors and have no desire to open that can of worms.  I will say that I think a lot of traditional preferences could have been accommodated by the 4e system without throwing away the new things that 4e added if the designers were as options focused as some of 4e's fans were (I am a 4e fan, and "options for everyone" is practically my motto).  If there had been specific variant sections in the PHB/DMG or in the online articles for things such as halving HPs for faster fights, different rates of healing, surgeless play, and a daily-only option for casters (all of which can be accommodated by the 4e system if someone wanted to create the appropriate subsystems to plug-in) they would have introduced new while preserving the old.#3 Published SettingsAside from Ravenloft, Planescape, ans Spelljammer, I don't really use published settings.  I know, from what I've read, that they tend to get shaken up every so often (most likely just for the sake of generating sales).  I don't think any one edition is the only culprit in this regard, it just seems to be the way the business works in general.  Like you, I think that the D&D settings are a valuable resource, especially with them being able to license the movie rights to people who will hopefully do them more justice than the movies have until now.  However, I don't care for the default setting conceit.  A large percentage of games are set in homebrew settings where the default generally means diddly unless it appeals to the sensibilities of the homebrewer.#4 Presentation of optionsI do think 5e could have done this better.  As it is, people tend to expect that what's in the books, except for the races labeled as optional, are valid for use by default.  Actually, the default is check with your DM because you never know what's allowed until you do.  Even if we are assuming the game takes place in FR, each DM is going to run FR differently: the character of the FR setting in games that I run in FR is most likely going to differ from the character of the setting in the ones you might run.  Presenting things one way (i.e. only the stuff labeled optional is optional and everything else is default) when it's actually another way (DM allows or disallows whatever) is not the best idea as it expands potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than limiting it or encouraging communication.</blockquote>

Verification