Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8381059" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Wow, well this exchange is certainly condescending!&nbsp; There have been innumerable and varied reasons given for why people want floating ASI (or, indeed, no ASI), including discussion of what alternative features/options might be given to the race selection to make it feel more distinctive.&nbsp; I've tried to quote from the history of the game, going back to OD&amp;D, to show the different ways ability score modifications have been used--or not used--for those particular game designs.&nbsp; Other people have discussed what they enjoy about character creation in 5e.&nbsp; So I don't know why you would assume all of the reasons given and discussed are just &quot;dissembling&quot; for the sake of a &quot;+1&quot;.&nbsp; And it suggests that any further discussion or argumentation would similarly be dismissed as a smokescreen for wanting a +1.What's been most surprising to me about this whole discussion is the defense of 5e as a system.&nbsp; I think it's interesting to discuss what 5e does well, but also what it does not do well, and along the way compare it to the design of other editions and games.&nbsp; Part of what is distinctive about dnd is that it was a collectively authored game, with real innovations in design starting out as just house rules or alternative systems.&nbsp; Discussions like this are just part of that always evolving process of modifying and experimenting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8381059, member: 7030755"] Wow, well this exchange is certainly condescending! There have been innumerable and varied reasons given for why people want floating ASI (or, indeed, no ASI), including discussion of what alternative features/options might be given to the race selection to make it feel more distinctive. I've tried to quote from the history of the game, going back to OD&D, to show the different ways ability score modifications have been used--or not used--for those particular game designs. Other people have discussed what they enjoy about character creation in 5e. So I don't know why you would assume all of the reasons given and discussed are just "dissembling" for the sake of a "+1". And it suggests that any further discussion or argumentation would similarly be dismissed as a smokescreen for wanting a +1. What's been most surprising to me about this whole discussion is the defense of 5e as a system. I think it's interesting to discuss what 5e does well, but also what it does not do well, and along the way compare it to the design of other editions and games. Part of what is distinctive about dnd is that it was a collectively authored game, with real innovations in design starting out as just house rules or alternative systems. Discussions like this are just part of that always evolving process of modifying and experimenting. [/QUOTE]

Verification