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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5733536" data-attributes="member: 7006">Based upon this section of your post and the two paragraphs that followed it... I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted by what I meant by "presenting" the game in two different ways.  Because what I was really advocating seems to be what you talked about in your following paragraphs.  Not that there are two different games... but rather two different ways to present the rules of the game.First way is to present the game in the three rulebook hardcover format as we have now (Player's Handbook / DMG / Monster Manual), which covers all the levels of play (whether that be 1-20 or 1-30 or whatever the designers wanted the highest level to be).  This would ordinarily be what most established gamers would pick up, because they were used to the hardcover model, plus they probably would want the entire rules of the game in one go.  Now whether or not they condense the three book model down into a single Core Rulebook model (as it seems you are suggesting), that's a perfectly viable alternative option doesn't really affect what I was putting forth.The second way to present the rules is to make it New Player friendly by doing it by Tier, only putting in the boxed set the rules for whatever Tier its for.  This way... the basic game Starter Set includes the PH/DMG/MM rules all together for just that first Adventurer's Tier.  I would disagree with your idea to include the entire Core Rulebook in that Starter Set... because that defeats the purpose of having a Starter Set.  You don't want extraneous rules to confuse the issue.  Then the purpose of making boxed sets for the upper Tiers is simple to not make players who own the boxed Starter Set and want to continue playing have to go buy the hardcover books.  Because they essentially are buying the Adventurer Tier material twice.  So if the costs of boxed sets can be made the same as books... you might as well present the upper Tiers in boxed sets too, so that those players can get the whole game without doubling up on material.    This seems to be what you are also advocating, so my guess is that how I originally defined my "two ways to present the game" is what caused the confusion and your disagreement.  Unless of course I'm entirely off-base.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I would definitely agree with much of your statements about Epic Tier.  There are so many issues with it (both from a set of game rules and from presentation) that I purposefully did not delve into what would have to change about it to make it viable.  But what you said is definitely right up there.And what you mention about making Epic actually less well-defined and detailed is actually in many ways would have to be both True and False at the same time.  Because the game certainly could be less actually codified at Epic in terms of specific power detail and game mechanics as you pointed out, with improvisation having more of an influence on how the game plays.  But the irony of that of course is you need to then make the rules of Epic on how to actually accomplish that sort of improvisation much more well-written and detailed so that DMs understand how to actually get it to work.  You end up with much less detail in terms of codified mechanics, but much more detail on how to run the game in that way.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification