Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9439628" data-attributes="member: 55680">Agreed completely. I think speeding up people's turns is worth a bit of loss of tactical depth. After all if you can get more turns done in an hour you can often get more interesting tactical decisions made per HOUR even if you're doing less tactically per TURN.The 1e DMG had exactly that. That book was a mess but it was a glorious mess.Eh, the D&D brand has been owned by asshats since before I was born. And I'm not young.I'm not going to obsess about that, but (unless my sons wants D&D books for Christian/his birthday) I'm buying 3PP stuff over D&D-branded stuff which I think does more to support the overall hobby. Don't see much of a difference between current D&D leadership and past D&D leadership all the way back to the Blums and possibly earlier though...Heh. Of all of the trends in modern pop culture that most makes me want to yell at kids to get off my lawn the most it's the refusal to just give things a simple number so we can keep track of which one it is.shrugs I'm just fine with Honor Among Thieves' overall tone and thing it's pretty representative of what D&D has always been. There was plenty of drama in that among the humor and I don't remember any fart jokes in it...As much as I don't like it personally, Hasbro having the economic muscle to get D&D on store shelves and on movie screens brings in new blood that is essential for the hobby. However, it's just as essential for the hobby for other games to find their niches and introduce players to new ideas. The hobby needs D&D to bring in new blood and D&D needs the rest of the hobby to bring in new ideas, D&D dominating forever as thoroughly as 5e has is bad for the hobby. The boom and bust cycle for D&D has worked out well for the hobby overall so far and D&D's overdue for a bust. I hope that results in people scattering to new games and getting fresh RPG ideas before a future edition of D&D brings in new blood all over again.The hobby, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.Well of course I do. Especially since the specific playstyle I'd like the most (OSR crossed with Indie with approximately 5e's level of crunch and CharGen detail) doesn't really exist as a marketable thing and I'm to lazy to write my own games from scratch. I just don't think that WotC will ever give me that as giving me that would probably bankrupt them since my ideas are too niche. I would like 5e-level compromise edition that gives me at least a good chunk of what I want though...I don't twist the clear intent and examples of a spell like Command. I run it (as a DM) and use it (as a player) exactly as it's intended to be used and how it was intended to be used in 3.0 and TSR-D&D before that. I don't have any problem with following 5e Command exactly how WotC wanted me to use it when they wrote it in 2014, I freaking love that spell. And that's why I'm annoyed that one of my favorite 5e spells has been replaced with an empty husk of what it used to be.And yeah, yeah, I know I can houserule it back in five seconds, just like I houseruled the 3.5e Command spell. It's not about Command specifically, it's about trust. I don't trust people who think the 2024 version of the spell is more fun than the 2014 version to make RPG content that I think is fun, since they obviously don't see eye to eye with me on what is fun in D&D. Same as I wouldn't trust WotC to balance naughty word if they wrote up a blog post about how OP sneak attack is.</blockquote>

Verification