Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9445477" data-attributes="member: 7045806">I have this theory. A wild and crazy theory. 5e is polarizing to those of us who discuss it on the internet, but that's not my theory. It's not wild and crazy enough. Many want a vague system of rulings by a human. Many want a tight and balanced rule set that facilitates engaging game play. These two sides are forever locked in a form of intellectual combat. Each side armed with the latest and greatest brain-powered weaponry.And this combat, well, It feels like two kids fighting over a piece of chocolate cake. Chocolate cake isn't either kid's favorite cake. It's not ideal by any stretch. In fact the favorite cake of both kids is still on the counter. No, both kids want the piece of chocolate cake, because it's the biggest piece of cake. You don't see this &quot;fight&quot; in other systems to nearly the same extent. Why don't we see Pathfinder 2 fans bickering about having fewer rules? Well, because those pieces of cake aren't big enough to fight over. To some extent, this is occurring with the vigor that it does, not because of a lack of options, but because 5e is popular. And in human psychology there is great value in being a part of what's popular.It sounds weird. But I would bet that if 5e was 5% of the market share, instead of 95%, it's fan base never has these discussions. People who never play it, never talk about how it should be. Because that would be a piece of cake that's too small to be worth the fight. 5e causes it's own drama and division by being a big piece of cake.Now, at 3am, I kind of want some cake.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DinoInDisguise, post: 9445477, member: 7045806"] I have this theory. A wild and crazy theory. 5e is polarizing to those of us who discuss it on the internet, but that's not my theory. It's not wild and crazy enough. Many want a vague system of rulings by a human. Many want a tight and balanced rule set that facilitates engaging game play. These two sides are forever locked in a form of intellectual combat. Each side armed with the latest and greatest brain-powered weaponry. And this combat, well, It feels like two kids fighting over a piece of chocolate cake. Chocolate cake isn't either kid's favorite cake. It's not ideal by any stretch. In fact the favorite cake of both kids is still on the counter. No, both kids want the piece of chocolate cake, because it's the biggest piece of cake. You don't see this "fight" in other systems to nearly the same extent. Why don't we see Pathfinder 2 fans bickering about having fewer rules? Well, because those pieces of cake aren't big enough to fight over. To some extent, this is occurring with the vigor that it does, not because of a lack of options, but because 5e is popular. And in human psychology there is great value in being a part of what's popular. It sounds weird. But I would bet that if 5e was 5% of the market share, instead of 95%, it's fan base never has these discussions. People who never play it, never talk about how it should be. Because that would be a piece of cake that's too small to be worth the fight. 5e causes it's own drama and division by being a big piece of cake. Now, at 3am, I kind of want some cake. [/QUOTE]

Verification