Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7546246" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think that is a good question: would it be a Pandora's box where no one could agree on anything? Do they need to?We'd get to hear what the designers' identify as issues with the rules. They hear more sides to the story, and have more data available, than individual DMs do. So we'd gain the benefit of their time and expertise, and hear how they might fix those issues. For me that would have more value than another set of character options. I'd possibly ignore both, but I feel more likely to use the bug fixes. Thus, this wouldn't be about changing any individual DM's application of the rules: individual DMs would continue to shape the game as they like to their table. I think we are still safe from the hobnailed boot of the WotC rules-police kicking down our doors. Rather, it would be about the designers looking back with a critical eye, and offering bug fixes for what they can identify as common system issues. Things they'd have done differently, given the hindsight they now have.The vision of multiple tables with multiple expectations is only partly true: they all play D&amp;D. They recognisably do so by drawing from a common set of rules. If it really is DIY all the way down, why is anyone using the commercially published rules? The fact a conversation can even be had on this forum about a class, say paladin, or something as narrow as a category of weapon, is testament to the profound influence of those common rules over the hobby. Ultimately, they are constitutive: D&amp;D exists because of the common rules. It's possible that the objection is really something else... something expressed extremely opaquely. I'd be interested to know what that is?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7546246, member: 71699"] I think that is a good question: would it be a Pandora's box where no one could agree on anything? Do they need to? We'd get to hear what the [I]designers'[/I] identify as issues with the rules. They hear more sides to the story, and have more data available, than individual DMs do. So we'd gain the benefit of their time and expertise, and hear how they might fix those issues. For me that would have more value than another set of character options. I'd possibly ignore both, but I feel more likely to use the bug fixes. Thus, this wouldn't be about changing any individual DM's application of the rules: individual DMs would continue to shape the game as they like to their table. I think we are still safe from the hobnailed boot of the WotC rules-police kicking down our doors. Rather, it would be about the designers looking back with a critical eye, and offering bug fixes for what they can identify as common system issues. Things they'd have done differently, given the hindsight they now have. The vision of multiple tables with multiple expectations is only partly true: they all play D&D. They recognisably do so by drawing from a common set of rules. If it really is DIY all the way down, why is anyone using the commercially published rules? The fact a conversation can even be had on this forum about a class, say paladin, or something as narrow as a category of weapon, is testament to the profound influence of those common rules over the hobby. Ultimately, they are constitutive: D&D exists [I]because[/I] of the common rules. It's possible that the objection is really something else... something expressed extremely opaquely. I'd be interested to know what that is? [/QUOTE]

Verification