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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9892454" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I certainly believe this, but...you were the one arguing that old-school GMs were super generous. Now you seem to be undercutting your own point. I don't understand.Yes, I'm aware. I consider this a short-term design benefit, long-term design mistake. The treasure tables were a hidden Fighter class feature, and this got lost between the end of 1e and the start of 3e. That's an extremely serious design error.It would have been better to make the Fighter powerful enough to stand on its own, so that nothing of the design could be lost.Er, what was the optional rule?I mean, in context, yes, I agree.But it wouldn't work today. Players would not respond well to such...weirdly bespoke elements. That doesn't mean we should completely eliminate weird bespoke elements--I'm actually much more neutral on bespoke things than folks seem to think--but every bespoke element needs to be thoroughly justified, because each and every one is an extra burden that can be a quit moment for players.We should never be afraid of the risk of quit moments. That's a massive mistake. But it is no less a mistake to ignore them either. Where possible, when the cost isn't severe, we should try to at least mitigate as many such moments as we can. Doing so makes the game more accessible.This is also part of why I so desperately desire, and advocate for, robust rules for "novice levels" (read: rules for "below level 1") and "incremental advances" (read: rules for "partial level-up" benefits). And, likewise, why I think D&D should absolutely make some "Funnel Adventures" which exploit both of these rules to furnish fans of OSR-like experiences with something...more or less like what they enjoy.I genuinely believe in a big tent. It's a big part of why I have so much venom for 5e's claims of being one. It claimed to be a big tent. It lied.It's almost like being exposed to better, more rigorous design helped you see how to make the games you already liked better-designed and more-rigorous......did you read what I wrote?Zardnaar, people were telling me that we should be applying pre-modern things to current-day D&D. That with a rebuild of 5e, or with 6e, or whatever, that we should make people run it old-school style, deny them even the potential of a modern-style experience. Telling me "don't apply modernism to pre-3E" is exactly the inverse of what I'm doing. I'm telling people that they cannot apply classicism to post-2E D&D, because enforced classicism would kill the game.</blockquote>

Verification