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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gideonpepys" data-source="post: 5886356" data-attributes="member: 79141">I think this blog entry is great for people like Jane (who like this kind of thing), but no so hot for people like Craig (who can't understand why designers at Wizards have to to invent names for imaginary players like Andy (who doesn't exist)).Sorry - I don't like the sound of this at all.I'm not keen on the 'one hour adventure' concept and now this seems to be translating into the '10 level campaign'  I'm even less impressed.  (Given that 'advanced themes' sound an awful lot like paragon paths.)I want backgrounds and themes to provide unique abilities and bonuses that can't be obtained anywhere else - not just form a loose bracket of suggested feats/skills that are essentially interchangable."I'm a sage, but I decided against Linguist and went with Toughness..."Nothing against players being able to choose feats and skills.  Nothing against suggestions for newcomers.  But taking cool elements like theme and background and making them into a list of mechanical elements removes another string from the creative player's bow.To my mind, this iteration of D&D should spend less time worrying about Chris (who can't be bothered to learn the rules or wants to play a forty year old version of D&D which he already has on his shelf) and more time worrying about Laura (who is sufficiently interested in the game to buy a book or two).In my experience the latter 'player type' is much more likely to invest in the game and be a customer.  All of my Chris-type players rely on everyone else to tell them the rules.  So why cater to them?  Just give them a sheet with all the nuanced options removed, but  leave them in for everyone else.</blockquote>

Verification