Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8272889" data-attributes="member: 82106">Having been in the thick of things, so to speak, in the developmental phase of this game, I consider 5e's design to be almost entirely a reactionary document. It is basically, at its core, a REJECTION of things, which then re-establishes what came before as basically a 'status quo antebellum' sort of situation. Though he will never say, I suspect Monte Cooke felt kind of the same way, that it was not really so much a 'design' as an anti-design. Clearly he lost interest quickly, or got told to shut up and follow the company line, and bailed instead (not a biggie, creative differences are common and not always a bad thing). During this process Mike, or someone in the 5e design team, wielded the 'big tent' rhetoric to at least argue that some fig leaves be grafted onto the game. Hit Dice are one (though I think it is fair to say they are reasonably integral to how the game typically plays, so 'fig leaf' may be selling them a bit short) that is pretty obvious. The various optional check rules, and Inspiration, are another relic of this. Some of this material was part of more extensive proposals for actual mechanical/process that certain progressive factions wanted in the core rules. Some of those proposals were pretty much promised as 'modules' to be included either as options in the core books, or as additional published material. This was reneged on, though Mike and WotC have conveniently forgotten (and erased) all the discussion that took place on this back in the day. So at this point they claim 5e delivered on all their promises, but this is clearly nothing like the case. So, yes, conflicting desires, and an arbiter with a serious bias.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8272889, member: 82106"] Having been in the thick of things, so to speak, in the developmental phase of this game, I consider 5e's design to be almost entirely a reactionary document. It is basically, at its core, a REJECTION of things, which then re-establishes what came before as basically a 'status quo antebellum' sort of situation. Though he will never say, I suspect Monte Cooke felt kind of the same way, that it was not really so much a 'design' as an anti-design. Clearly he lost interest quickly, or got told to shut up and follow the company line, and bailed instead (not a biggie, creative differences are common and not always a bad thing). During this process Mike, or someone in the 5e design team, wielded the 'big tent' rhetoric to at least argue that some fig leaves be grafted onto the game. Hit Dice are one (though I think it is fair to say they are reasonably integral to how the game typically plays, so 'fig leaf' may be selling them a bit short) that is pretty obvious. The various optional check rules, and Inspiration, are another relic of this. Some of this material was part of more extensive proposals for actual mechanical/process that certain progressive factions wanted in the core rules. Some of those proposals were pretty much promised as 'modules' to be included either as options in the core books, or as additional published material. This was reneged on, though Mike and WotC have conveniently forgotten (and erased) all the discussion that took place on this back in the day. So at this point they claim 5e delivered on all their promises, but this is clearly nothing like the case. So, yes, conflicting desires, and an arbiter with a serious bias. [/QUOTE]

Verification