Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8458408" data-attributes="member: 71699">That's a useful insight! Would the framing work better as E11 or E10? With the presentation being the adjusted level progression tables, dropping the 'demi-level' language altogether?What I am aiming for is to cleave extremely close to the expressed goals of E6. Statements such as -Emphasis mine. And -These are goals that resonate with me.The E6 game design is more correctly understood as a meta-game design, with distinct consequences for play - such as no ordinarily available 4th level or higher spells for player-characters. I'm confident that the kinds of mechanics I am working with produce the same consequences in play, but people seem invested in the meta-game design.I'm not sure if reflecting on the relative impoverishment of discarding all the rich class and sub-class features above 6th level, that do not derail the core objectives, would help others understand the value of 'not-just-feats'? 5th has about 75 feats. 3.5ed had hundreds by the time E6 was created. The granularity and class coverage (feats given classes care about) is entirely different, for example meta-magic was all contained in feats in 3.5ed, whereas casters have a short list in 5th, many of which are well-known to be low in value.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8458408, member: 71699"] That's a useful insight! Would the framing work better as E11 or E10? With the presentation being the adjusted level progression tables, dropping the 'demi-level' language altogether? What I am aiming for is to cleave extremely close to the expressed goals of E6. Statements such as - Emphasis mine. And - These are goals that resonate with me. The E6 game design is more correctly understood as a [B]meta-game [/B]design, with distinct consequences for play - such as no ordinarily available 4th level or higher spells for player-characters. I'm confident that the kinds of mechanics I am working with produce the same consequences in play, but people seem invested in the meta-game design. I'm not sure if reflecting on the relative impoverishment of discarding all the rich class and sub-class features above 6th level, that do not derail the core objectives, would help others understand the value of 'not-just-feats'? 5th has about 75 feats. 3.5ed had hundreds by the time E6 was created. The granularity and class coverage (feats given classes care about) is entirely different, for example meta-magic was all contained in feats in 3.5ed, whereas casters have a short list in 5th, many of which are well-known to be low in value. [/QUOTE]

Verification