Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thaumaturge" data-source="post: 6320854" data-attributes="member: 1927">Thank you all for the good discussion so far. [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has mentioned he might do a public post-mortem of the 5e design and playtest process some day. I hope he does. It would be fascinating.I'm quoting this part for you to remind us all you said this as well as the "badwrongfun" part. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree they shouldn't, for instance, make fun of people who want 5 minute short rests. Neither should they ridicule people who want 8 hour short rests. Those are different play styles people genuinely like for various reasons.However, if the designers think a style of play is boring and they have that supposition backed up by player feedback, I'm okay with them calling it boring. It helps if I agree, certainly. But I like tracking spell components, and they think that's boring, too. That's fine. It probably is. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />I agree with your distinction. I disagree with your point that Mearls was referencing rules (I almost brought up which rules) that don't work as intended. My take from what he said was, /shrug "working as intended". If people want to play that way they may, we aren't going to stop them. That seems different from saying, "magic missile is awesome when we didn't want it to be? Oh well."Again, I agree. I just interpret him as saying "this is only a problem for a boring group (not a bad group) and even then it's not a problem because they like to play in a way I find boring". (Not an actual quote, just me making stuff up).Good analogy. I, too, want a picket fence.I agree. I think this is why Mearls, in his latest L&L article, mentioned annual surveys to see if things were actually problems in actual play. That seems huge. Instead of seeing bag-o-rats as a problem discussed on boards and then implementing changes, they are going to ask people, "hey, is bag-o-rats a problem at your table". Then they'll only fix things when people respond in the affirmative.Agreed, see above.I've also been reflecting that the approach to rules for the last couple of editions was more rules-as-science (RaS), and for 5e and earlier editions it was more rules-as-art (RaA). The former is less hospitable to inexact language. The latter sometimes prefers inexact language, as it lets individual tables have individual experiences.I think this was their only real path to survival. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> Wow. Welcome to the hobby. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I went through this exact change. And now I'm back. I hope to stay this time. More precise language seems to breed an expectation of exactness. Thaumaturge.</blockquote>

Verification