Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6017174" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well some things are but others are not.&nbsp; I do think the number of pages devoted to this subject or that can be a compromise.&nbsp; I think my suggestion to have a terse very clear stat block and a flavorful description is not so much a compromise as it is pleasing both sides.&nbsp; I think they need in some cases to please both sides and not settle for a lukewarm middle of the road approach.&nbsp; There are some things which if widespread in the rules I'll probably just pass on the game.&nbsp; If they are rare then I'll houserule them worse case assuming no modular option is offered.&nbsp; Others though who are a bit averse to houseruling might actually abandon the game even in those situations.&nbsp; The designers I think need to realize which approach is best, compromise vs modularity.They also need to strongly emphasize that rules are not set in stone.&nbsp; That DMs and their groups are very free to change anything.&nbsp; They need to give lots of examples of doing this in the DMG.&nbsp; They need to have enough modules to make the whole concept seem standard.&nbsp; This really was the beauty of the earlier editions.&nbsp; But I think 5e needs to do it even better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6017174, member: 6698278"] Well some things are but others are not. I do think the number of pages devoted to this subject or that can be a compromise. I think my suggestion to have a terse very clear stat block and a flavorful description is not so much a compromise as it is pleasing both sides. I think they need in some cases to please both sides and not settle for a lukewarm middle of the road approach. There are some things which if widespread in the rules I'll probably just pass on the game. If they are rare then I'll houserule them worse case assuming no modular option is offered. Others though who are a bit averse to houseruling might actually abandon the game even in those situations. The designers I think need to realize which approach is best, compromise vs modularity. They also need to strongly emphasize that rules are not set in stone. That DMs and their groups are very free to change anything. They need to give lots of examples of doing this in the DMG. They need to have enough modules to make the whole concept seem standard. This really was the beauty of the earlier editions. But I think 5e needs to do it even better. [/QUOTE]

Verification