AngryMojo
First Post
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with this argument is the same problem with so many edition-war-spawning discussions; the absolute statement of what D&D "should" be. Person A wants adventure scoped balancing, where some players dominate some encounters while others dominate others while person B wants contribution by all characters in all encounters. Neither player is wrong, they just have different styles of play.
The issue comes when one player says their style of play is the way it "should" be or that their style of play is "real D&D," whatever that means. Even if the statement "it's not D&D" is accompanied with "to me," it's still an inflammatory statement. Lots of people get very offended by that.
Stating "I hope 5e contains modules that support my style of play, in which a fireball can kill a large number of kobolds automatically" is a much more constructive statement than "If fireball can't kill kobolds it's not D&D." The first statement proposes a solution, which is in all likelihood a feasible goal. If that's the case, then including a module where monsters don't advance and maintain low hit point levels is an easy fix, and a simple integration into your game.
The issue comes when one player says their style of play is the way it "should" be or that their style of play is "real D&D," whatever that means. Even if the statement "it's not D&D" is accompanied with "to me," it's still an inflammatory statement. Lots of people get very offended by that.
Stating "I hope 5e contains modules that support my style of play, in which a fireball can kill a large number of kobolds automatically" is a much more constructive statement than "If fireball can't kill kobolds it's not D&D." The first statement proposes a solution, which is in all likelihood a feasible goal. If that's the case, then including a module where monsters don't advance and maintain low hit point levels is an easy fix, and a simple integration into your game.