D&D Monster Manual (2025)

D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)


log in or register to remove this ad

It is an excellent reason to drop WotC and move on to more varied and creative D&D-style gaming supported by companies not so married to broad appeal and simplistic design.

I guess those of us who want more can be thankful to 5.5 for encouraging us to move on.
And yet here you are... once again in a thread about one of the D&D 5e core rulebooks intent on insulting and tearing down what D&D 5e fans like or want... I've always been of the opinion that if the 3pp books you use and support were so much better that WotC's you'd be spending more time & energy building up that community and less time and energy trying to tear down the one around official D&D.
 

And yet here you are... once again in a thread about one of the D&D 5e core rulebooks intent on insulting and tearing down what D&D 5e fans like or want... I've always been of the opinion that if the 3pp books you use and support were so much better that WotC's you'd be spending more time & energy building up that community and less time and energy trying to tear down the one around official D&D.
I spend quite a bit of time building up what I like. I talk about it all the time, ask anyone.

And I'm not intent on tearing down anything. Like what you like. @Remathilis just suggested that the modern game had moved in a particular direction, and my stance is that presents an excellent opportunity to move on from it if you don't agree. I admit that my phrasing was less than kind and I apologized, in the post to which you responded. And I have moved on from it. I don't play 5.5 and I haven't purchased any 5.5 books.
 

Is that your goodbye to me, or my goodbye to others? And your paraphrasing of me is far more crude than anything I wrote or will write, so glass houses and all that.

I could have worded that more kindly, and I apologize. The meaning behind the words I 100% stand behind, however.
It's a response to your general tone. We all know WotC D&D isn't your bag, but you can't help but get that dig in. "Simplistic". "More creative". It's not enough that you don't like it, it's the fact you must imply anyone who does is less enlightened or creative.
 

It's a response to your general tone. We all know WotC D&D isn't your bag, but you can't help but get that dig in. "Simplistic". "More creative". It's not enough that you don't like it, it's the fact you must imply anyone who does is less enlightened or creative.
You don't think 3pp is often more creative and less broadly designed (I'll take back "simplistic" since it usually reads negatively) than official D&D? Other designers don't have Hasbro accountants, marketers, and executives breathing down their necks and thus are allowed to exercise creativity more freely. I'm not blaming 5.5's design team. They have comparatively little say in what gets published by the megacorporation they work for. I'm not attacking 5.5's fans either. Personal preference is just that, and IMO can't be legitimately attacked.
 

I spend quite a bit of time building up what I like. I talk about it all the time, ask anyone.

And I'm not intent on tearing down anything. Like what you like. @Remathilis just suggested that the modern game had moved in a particular direction, and my stance is that presents an excellent opportunity to move on from it if you don't agree.

Cant one always move on from any game...at any time if they don't agree with the direction said game moved in? This is so self apparent that I don't understand what your purpose in stating something so obvious is...
 

Cant one always move on from any game...at any time if they don't agree with the direction said game moved in? This is so self apparent that I don't understand what your purpose in stating something so obvious is...
5.5's text has made it more clear than ever that they have embraced a particular playstyle. Having that stated so plainly, with little room for interpretation is something I see as a good opportunity to move from the game if that stated playstyle doesn't agree with you. That's all I was trying to say. I've already apologized twice for how I decided to say it.
 

You don't think 3pp is often more creative and less broadly designed (I'll take back "simplistic" since it usually reads negatively) than official D&D? Other designers don't have Hasbro accountants, marketers, and executives breathing down their necks and thus are allowed to exercise creativity more freely. I'm not blaming 5.5's design team. They have comparatively little say in what gets published by the megacorporation they work for. I'm not attacking 5.5's fans either. Personal preference is just that, and IMO can't be legitimately attacked.
I find this argument interesting when most (all) 3pp haven't actually created their own system, but have instead opted to take the work done by the designers you are disparaging and build on it. I don't think either should be lauded as more creative since it's like asking is it more creative to invent the automobile or fine tune it to be an offroad vehicle. How do you even answer that, they're both being creative in different ways.
 

5.5's text has made it more clear than ever that they have embraced a particular playstyle. Having that stated so plainly, with little room for interpretation is something I see as a good opportunity to move from the game if that stated playstyle doesn't agree with you. That's all I was trying to say. I've already apologized twice for how I decided to say it.
What's the playstyle?
 

You don't think 3pp is often more creative and less broadly designed (I'll take back "simplistic" since it usually reads negatively) than official D&D? Other designers don't have Hasbro accountants, marketers, and executives breathing down their necks and thus are allowed to exercise creativity more freely. I'm not blaming 5.5's design team. They have comparatively little say in what gets published by the megacorporation they work for. I'm not attacking 5.5's fans either. Personal preference is just that, and IMO can't be legitimately attacked.
No. I think it is AS creative. No more, no less. Different, certainly. Would you say Taylor Swift is less creative than the unsigned band down the street because she has a record contract and marketing people, and the local band doesn't? Would you say James Gunn is less creative than a Youtuber? Would you say James Patterson is less creative than the writers on fanfiction.net? Of course you wouldn't! And if you did, you'd be lying. Creativity is not a condition of size or connections.
 

Remove ads

Top