Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jawsh" data-source="post: 5875122" data-attributes="member: 17061">Me too.True, but I think the culprit behind the utterly broken crap is that it was rushed at the time. The designers were under the gun, tried really hard to think of a cool mechanic, or something great that should happen in the game. Then they did it. They accomplished what they were under the gun for, except they didn't develop it all the way, or consider all the consequences. They got as far as &quot;this cool thing should happen&quot; but didn't consider all the side effects. Let us thank Pelor that they managed to create something, necessity being the mother of invention, and deadlines being the mother of great prose. But let's not throw away their mechanical solutions immediately. I agree with you in a way. If all you do is just look at those old books for a cursory &quot;inspiration&quot;, then you'll probably encounter similar problems in implementation. You'll just end up taking the ruleset down a slightly different rabbit hole. The idea ought to be to stand on the shoulders of giants. Look at exactly what they did mechanically, and try to stick as close to that as possible, while fixing the accidental problems that crop up. You can't be like &quot;sheesh, there are just so many problems with ability scores, it's pretty clear ability scores just don't fit our design goals. Out they go.&quot; Rather, I'd say start with the mechanics as given, and only change them if you absolutely have to. True, they have mentioned playing older editions of D&amp;D many times. I have no doubt that they really did play a lot of old D&amp;D and do a lot of research. But we don't exactly know how much that entails. D&amp;D is a very deep hobby. &quot;I played old D&amp;D&quot; can mean widely different things to different players. As far as I'm concerned, playing old versions of D&amp;D as they appear in the Core Rulebooks alone is not sufficient. Neither is a selected canon. What I want to hear from WotC is a story about how they went through every roleplaying book ever published by TSR, and a large number published by Judges Guild, and many others. But what I want from 5E is pretty huge. I'm not ashamed of asking for the moon, but I won't be surprised if I get another magazine-style treatment of the D&amp;D game. The best I'm hoping for is &quot;it sorta feels like D&amp;D. I mean, there are people called elves and dwarves and rangers and wizards in it. That must make it D&amp;D, right? Also Driz'zt.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jawsh, post: 5875122, member: 17061"] Me too. True, but I think the culprit behind the utterly broken crap is that it was rushed at the time. The designers were under the gun, tried really hard to think of a cool mechanic, or something great that should happen in the game. Then they did it. They accomplished what they were under the gun for, except they didn't develop it all the way, or consider all the consequences. They got as far as "this cool thing should happen" but didn't consider all the side effects. Let us thank Pelor that they managed to create something, necessity being the mother of invention, and deadlines being the mother of great prose. But let's not throw away their mechanical solutions immediately. I agree with you in a way. If all you do is just look at those old books for a cursory "inspiration", then you'll probably encounter similar problems in implementation. You'll just end up taking the ruleset down a slightly different rabbit hole. The idea ought to be to stand on the shoulders of giants. Look at exactly what they did mechanically, and try to stick as close to that as possible, while fixing the accidental problems that crop up. You can't be like "sheesh, there are just so many problems with ability scores, it's pretty clear ability scores just don't fit our design goals. Out they go." Rather, I'd say start with the mechanics as given, and only change them if you absolutely have to. True, they have mentioned playing older editions of D&D many times. I have no doubt that they really did play a lot of old D&D and do a lot of research. But we don't exactly know how much that entails. D&D is a very deep hobby. "I played old D&D" can mean widely different things to different players. As far as I'm concerned, playing old versions of D&D as they appear in the Core Rulebooks alone is not sufficient. Neither is a selected canon. What I want to hear from WotC is a story about how they went through every roleplaying book ever published by TSR, and a large number published by Judges Guild, and many others. But what I want from 5E is pretty huge. I'm not ashamed of asking for the moon, but I won't be surprised if I get another magazine-style treatment of the D&D game. The best I'm hoping for is "it sorta feels like D&D. I mean, there are people called elves and dwarves and rangers and wizards in it. That must make it D&D, right? Also Driz'zt." [/QUOTE]

Verification