NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6579256" data-attributes="member: 996">I like & enjoy D&D.  I'd prefer not to think of myself as arrogant or elitist.   Exactly.  Just because a game has faults doesn't mean you can't like it.It does mean it could be improved, though.... It's not like AD&D, for instance, will ever stop being D&D.  We have the classic game to go back to whenever we like, whether in spite of or because of the various oddities & failings it possessed.  The insistence that the latest edition also have the same oddities and failings, though, is problematic for the hobby as a whole.  It makes D&D both the proud, faithful flagship of TTRPGs - and their inescapable albatross.  Ironic, a little bittersweet/sad, and after the edition war, I don't see how it could change. No, it's a delightfully fun game, for me (in the case of 5e, to DM) - that's a subjective opinion on my part.  But, it's a fun game that I acknowledge has mechanical shortcomings, which are right there, in the mechanics, in B&W. Of my long-time favorite TTRPGs:  1e AD&D, 1st Ed Gamma World, RQII, 3e & 4e D&D, Champions!/Hero System, and Mage: the Ascension, I could maybe recommend 2 of them as genuinely-good in any sort of mechanical sense.  The rest either have some good and bad aspects, or are just almost irredeemably mechanically flawed (even to the point that lampshading can contribute to the fun).   The idea that all aspects of a game, whether quantitative or qualitative are wholly subjective and impervious to analysis strikes me as futile.  If it were true, posts here would be limited to "I liked/didn't like it, YMMV."</blockquote>

Verification