Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8385903" data-attributes="member: 7023887">I have read it, and several times mind you. I read it before I read anything else in any of the Core 5e Rulebooks when I started playing the game. That doesn't mean that it is the final say on how the game can be/should be played, it's just how they intended it when designing 5e. And that has changed throughout the years. Now they support a larger variety of playstyles, which is an objectively good thing.WotC detailed the two most important aspects of D&D being its ability to foster and develop friendships, and it's ability to encourage imagination. Neither of those go against the playstyle of powergaming. Powergaming is not incompatible with teamwork or friendships (which I can attest to from my personal experience as a Powergamer Player and DM), and if anything, it encourages creativity.No, it's proof that it can matter. It might not matter at certain tables, but it does at others. My Eberron campaign would certainly be way, way different if the player characters' wealth didn't matter.It doesn't need to be an integral part of the edition to matter. That's like saying that your pinky finger doesn't matter because you can survive without it. That's not what the definition of "matter" means.It really doesn't. Not anymore. Maybe it mattered when they were designing the core of the game, but it doesn't anymore. Intent matters up until it's published. After that, it doesn't matter. Death of the Author and all that.No, it's not. Validity is all that matters. If it's valid, it's an equally appropriate and fine way to play the game. Stop with this "fun supremacy" (preaching that your playstyle of fun is more valid/appropriate because "it's what the game designers were intending when making the game"). It doesn't matter. It may not be "badwrongfun" (because you're going out of your way to avoid saying that it's wrong to play those ways), but you're still saying that it's inferior/"not as important/appropriate".Frankly, "playstyle appropriateness" can go to hell. If I want to play a Spelljamming, Swashbuckling, rag-tag campaign with Laser Pistols, 4-armed Monkey-People, and Hippo-Headed, Gunslinging Brits, that's just as valid a campaign as the "typical" or "intended" style of playing the game. I don't care if Gygax designed the game without intending to have Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, or the rest of the vast swathe of D&D settings and playstyles be playable. Fun is all that matters now, not what the heck the designers were intending when making the game.Personally, I prefer playing games how it is fun for me, just like how I prefer eating food in a way that appeals to my taste-buds, not how it appeals to the people who made the meal that I bought. It doesn't matter if a dish was made to be mixed all together to taste a blend of flavors at once to me, I prefer eating the parts of my meal separate from one another. It is neither less valid nor acceptable for me to do this, because I'm still eating the food, I'm still paying the people for making the food, and I'm still enjoying the food. I just don't enjoy it in the same way that others might, and I'm not enjoying it in the same way that was intended.Both are valid ways to eat food/play the game. It doesn't matter if one was the intent. That doesn't make it better or superior. Stop saying that it does, please.I was originally going to reply to this, but this is really neither here nor there for both this post and the one you were replying to, so it just ended up being a red-herring.</blockquote>

Verification