Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 6003456" data-attributes="member: 23977">I like Ze Frank's theory about polarization:<a href="http://youtu.be/N5fXtThdR8I" target="_blank">FacePunch - YouTube</a>To sum up: essentially it takes a lot of emotional energy to write a post or comment, and therefore we only really do when we have a strong opinion about something. It also tends to come out a lot stronger then we really feel.Towards your other point: I think there was a push to make the D&amp;D games very &quot;solid&quot; and straight forward &quot;Here are the rules, they mean what they mean.&quot; like they were in other game systems.This in my opinion was a direct contrast to how 1e/2e were setup. Dragon itself was a never ending source of alternate rules and ideas. Everything about the game seemed optional and open to interpretation. Sometimes the rules we used changed from week to week. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />3e started the process with the idea of a balanced set of rules as written. What 3e had going for it was the OGL. Even though WoTC didn't specifically support the idea (as in with their own alternate rules and ideas) the OGL allowed for endless options and ideas.There were already people who banned all OGL products though, so the &quot;divide&quot; was in the works.Once you removed the OGL from 4e, the idea one &quot;one game style supported above others&quot; started to show more.I think this is where 5e can really shine. If it can give us a solid (modernized) base system with the adaptability of earlier systems (which is supported by &quot;official&quot; sources) it'll be golden.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 6003456, member: 23977"] I like Ze Frank's theory about polarization: [url=http://youtu.be/N5fXtThdR8I]FacePunch - YouTube[/url] To sum up: essentially it takes a lot of emotional energy to write a post or comment, and therefore we only really do when we have a strong opinion about something. It also tends to come out a lot stronger then we really feel. Towards your other point: I think there was a push to make the D&D games very "solid" and straight forward "Here are the rules, they mean what they mean." like they were in other game systems. This in my opinion was a direct contrast to how 1e/2e were setup. Dragon itself was a never ending source of alternate rules and ideas. Everything about the game seemed optional and open to interpretation. Sometimes the rules we used changed from week to week. :P 3e started the process with the idea of a balanced set of rules as written. What 3e had going for it was the OGL. Even though WoTC didn't specifically support the idea (as in with their own alternate rules and ideas) the OGL allowed for endless options and ideas. There were already people who banned all OGL products though, so the "divide" was in the works. Once you removed the OGL from 4e, the idea one "one game style supported above others" started to show more. I think this is where 5e can really shine. If it can give us a solid (modernized) base system with the adaptability of earlier systems (which is supported by "official" sources) it'll be golden. [/QUOTE]

Verification