NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5652993" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's not about how big a chunk of the D&D community Shemmy personally represents, though.The point was the fact that there was potential fun in the Plane of Vacuum and the Guardinals and Bytopia -- Shem's campaign realized that potential fun maybe more than most of ours, but that potential fun was always there, if we cared to do it.And for the designers to take that potential fun, to laugh at it, and to basically call it boring on toast and discard it, is going to make the people who had fun (or who saw fun) in those elements annoyed.It's not unlike some imaginary group of 5e designers saying about minis combat: "HAW HAW! Like playing with little plastic toys isn't something we all outgrew in the third grade! We're completely disregarding them, since they're basically the polar opposite of imagination and creativity, they lock you into a character design and worldview that inherently limits what you can do, and gives rise to all sorts of complexity that only makes hardcore math and wargame nerds happy."People who like minis combat would be (rather justifiably) annoyed. Possibly, depending on their sensitivity, even a little hurt, or offended. Perhaps even enough to post to a message board how it feels like the designers are being rude to them, since they tend to actually like the thing they're calling basically an activity for unimaginative third-grade math nerds. Everyone is entitled to like what they like. Minis combat might not be for everyone, and neither would Bytopia be for everyone, but to excise the potential fun that feature embodies just because you happen to not like it is pretty dang self-centered, and quite insulting to those who enjoy it. I personally think the designers of any edition of D&D have a responsibility to, at the very least, not be dismissive of the way someone happens to play. Ideally, they should support as much as they can, but even if they can't support it, they should at least respect it, as a valid way to have fun, since, presumably, if the person wasn't having fun, they wouldn't be doing it. Some of the 4e designers, by their derision, did not, in that instance, respect the way the others play. By FUBAR-ing the cosmology and mis-appropriating terms from D&D history, they already implied their disrespect less directly. The Guardinals aren't for everybody. No one group of monsters or allies or creatures ever is for everybody. Some people dislike the Far Realm, others don't use any adversary that isn't Humanoid, some folks can't stand the "seventy-billion different intelligent humanoid races" motif, and psionics is anathema to others. WotC should probably supply alternatives -- including the alternative to just omit them. But they shouldn't say that it's wrong to enjoy them. It's not wrong to enjoy the Runepriest. It's not my style, or the style of a lot of people, but it's not wrong to have fun with them. It would be rather rude of me to say that micro-managing powers is "the antithesis of fun." Clearly, some folks enjoy 'em. Horrah for them! Clearly, others don't. Horrah for them too! Here alternatives!</blockquote>

Verification