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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5835478" data-attributes="member: 82160">I am not sure about how things will sell, but I have my own beliefs from looking at the market over the last 10 years or so.  Nevertheless I believe taking the risk on the "chance that my game will shine" is central to D&D.  I believe taking that chance away in exchange for balance results in another game which I can only call not D&D.  We have lots of games where rules are explicit, fair, balanced, unbendable and there is little to no need for an imaginiative arbiter (board games, war games, card games, online rpgs).  The thing that I thought makes D&D interesting and enticing, is the group (along with the DM), collectively imagining adventure within a framework of rules. I believe the over focusing on balance undermines this aspect of D&D.Who should they cater to?  The guy who can write his own rules or the guy who can't?I don't believe that is the real question.  I believe the question is what is the nature of D&D to the majority of its active and potential fans.  Once you find that answer the designers should cater to that preference.  I personally believe they made a fundamental error in believing that the majority of fans wanted and thought of D&D as a "balanced, homogenous, tactical minis game" with little to no support for non combat/roleplaying (though I concede it could be added if the players wanted to do so and thought that D&D is a game in which they should).  I believe this fundamental error was shown in the first few years when they repeated over and over again that if the game didn't have an aspect you liked you could just "fluff" it.Of course the fanbase is changing, and the split is probably wider then ever, so I am not sure which will sell better.For me a classic example of the changing nature of the game is removing the fluff from the powers.  For my group, the fluff was the whole point, it was what made D&D interesting, otherwise I have tons of games where we can just follow the rules.  I was PAYING for the fluff, or rather that sweet mixture of mechanics and fluff.   I wasn't paying for some irrelevant movement/burst rule I could care less about and would probably houserule anyways (let alone the exact same class copied over and over again with minor changes).   That thought makes me want to rewrite your quote -Who should they cater to?  The guy who can write his own [fluff] or the guy who can't?I guess the answer will always be whatever sells better, I'm just expressing what I want and will pay for.</blockquote>

Verification