D&D General 6E But A + Thread

At a certain level, yes. Players should adjust to the game, or find a different one.

Why would you want to prevent that?

The public are not good designers or even good judges of design. WotC's design department should make the game they want, not the one the most fervent and opinionated members of their fanbase demand.
Can I just point out how hilarious there comments are in a thread about what you would want in 6e?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Can I just point out how hilarious there comments are in a thread about what you would want in 6e?

At a certain level, added to do some lifting.

If a game is designed intentionally in a certain way, then yes players either adjust to it, or find something else.

I dont feel 5e was particularly focused in its design, eventually I tired of its direction, chose to no longer adapt to it, and found other games.

The intent of this thread is specifically to say 'rebuild it'.
 

Except Patfhinder 1E also failed to address many of the balance issues. I would argue that they were so fundamental that a drastic redesign was necessary.

Granted, 4E threw out some babies with the bathwater, but it was extremely dirty bathwater that needed to be discarded.

Sure, thats fine. Plenty of people disagreed and found that the redesign was not worth what was lost, enough in fact to support a company.
 


Basically. WOTC didn't think anyone would want the Gamer Girl Bathwater of 3rd Edition and Paizo saw a golden opportunity. :ROFLMAO:

I chuckled but thats hilariously dismissive of a style of game and play which many enjoyed far more than the 'New and Improved' game that set Wizards up for thinking they may only get to release one more version before the lights are turned off.
 

While internal playtesting is of course important, I really wish they would stop with the "public playtests" which are really just part of the marketing department. If they really wanted to playtest stuff on a large scale,they would introduce it via AL and actually collect useful data and feedback.

That's what they did in lead up to 4E and the RPGA. Oops. They wanted a different game than anyone else.
 

4e’s fault was that the designers thought they knew what the audience wanted and never asked anything, only to find out that in reality they did not have the slightest idea what their audience wanted.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think they knew a lot better than you give credit for. Because they literally did ask for feedback, and they objectively did respond to it. We have proof. Unless you've forgotten the Golden Wyvern Adept fiasco, and how it proved that WotC literally could do no right?
 

Alignment--it can both be a guide (a goal) as well as a determination. It's either what you aspire to or what you are, and there can be a big difference. Some villains and anti-heroes truly think they're pursuing The Greater Good, whereas their methods draw away from that.

At best, draw it down from 9 to 7. Instead of a grid, see it as a linear barometer: LG --> G --> CN/N/LN --> E --> CE.
Just have alternate alignment systems

Law vs Chaos
Good vs Evil
Paragon vs Renegade
Loyalist vs Rebellion
Babyface vs Heel
Selfless vs Selfish
Jedi vs Sith
 


I chuckled but thats hilariously dismissive of a style of game and play which many enjoyed far more than the 'New and Improved' game that set Wizards up for thinking they may only get to release one more version before the lights are turned off.
I mean, of course people enjoyed 3rd edition. It managed to be even more broken than 1st. People love being able to break reality over their knees. It's power fantasy you can apply to other people. What's not to love?
 

Remove ads

Top