Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8271729" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I'm not sure. I think the most basic response was just &quot;DM's have managed to make it work in 5e, so 5e does it all!&quot; I mean, at its most sophisticated this argument claims that the design of 5e is a work of genius in which its lack of process and structure around general conflict resolution/plot direction is a powerful tool which frees it from some imagined large number of constraints which would make doing all this other stuff harder.I am reminded of all the silly OSR arguments that building a hodge-podge of subsystems incorporating whichever size of die Gary happened to first grab hold of on the day he decided to do X was a work of genius too, when it was plainly nothing of the sort. Now, I think MM is a lot more deliberate, systematic, and theory-aware game designer than GG was. So, maybe the 5e argument is somewhat more cogent. OTOH my take on it, personally, is they just got to a point where the arguments were endless and settled on a design that basically doesn't raise the outrage of too many people. Then they declared it all optional anyway, so that you can simply ignore it if you really ARE outraged. Sure, it gets out of your way, because that's all you can, politically, attach to D&amp;D anymore. The ship has sailed, and 4e-esque resolution frameworks are simply out of the question. Of course, with OGL, there's always an option, but for myself I've hacked the pattern established by 4e and found that it can do pretty much anything I want, really well! It certainly manages a mild form of story game pretty well when combined with appropriate principles of play (which 4e has, but is a bit weak on).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8271729, member: 82106"] Well, I'm not sure. I think the most basic response was just "DM's have managed to make it work in 5e, so 5e does it all!" I mean, at its most sophisticated this argument claims that the design of 5e is a work of genius in which its lack of process and structure around general conflict resolution/plot direction is a powerful tool which frees it from some imagined large number of constraints which would make doing all this other stuff harder. I am reminded of all the silly OSR arguments that building a hodge-podge of subsystems incorporating whichever size of die Gary happened to first grab hold of on the day he decided to do X was a work of genius too, when it was plainly nothing of the sort. Now, I think MM is a lot more deliberate, systematic, and theory-aware game designer than GG was. So, maybe the 5e argument is somewhat more cogent. OTOH my take on it, personally, is they just got to a point where the arguments were endless and settled on a design that basically doesn't raise the outrage of too many people. Then they declared it all optional anyway, so that you can simply ignore it if you really ARE outraged. Sure, it gets out of your way, because that's all you can, politically, attach to D&D anymore. The ship has sailed, and 4e-esque resolution frameworks are simply out of the question. Of course, with OGL, there's always an option, but for myself I've hacked the pattern established by 4e and found that it can do pretty much anything I want, really well! It certainly manages a mild form of story game pretty well when combined with appropriate principles of play (which 4e has, but is a bit weak on). [/QUOTE]

Verification