Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6321105" data-attributes="member: 54710">I think there is less of a dichotomy between &quot;playstyle preference&quot; and &quot;good group fix&quot; than you suggest.&nbsp; I see it as more of a spectrum.&nbsp; There are plenty of rules that require a &quot;good group fix&quot; if the group has a particular play style, but work fine in groups (who may be good or bad at fixing) with a different style.&nbsp; Lots of groups would be bothered by a magic missile that is better than fireball, but - evidently - rules like martial healing and rest dynamics draw a more varied response.&nbsp; Some of those positive responses are people suggesting &quot;good group fixes&quot;, but others are from groups where the issue just never came up.&nbsp; To take the martial healing example, there were some people who suggested how to tweak or narrate the rule to get around the realism issue, but other groups just thought it was awesome.&nbsp; If you just like how a rule works, you don't need a &quot;good group fix.&quot;What I think Mike and the rest of the WotC design team concluded (but wasn't stated in Mike's off-hand remark) is that there is a complexity cost in trying to tighten up the rules that they just weren't willing to pay.&nbsp; I don't want to go into the merits of &quot;the rule that dare not speak its name,&quot; but I'm guessing the design team just couldn't come up with a simple version of the rule that did what they wanted without generating the potentially boring incentive that has taken over so many threads.&nbsp; As a consequence, they pushed the default form of the game to one where the rules are less precise and, in certain ways, less balanced.&nbsp; Groups with a higher emphasis on tactical optimization may require more &quot;good group fixing&quot; for that kind of game.&nbsp; But as someone who adjusted 4e to be less precise and to give mechanical significance to &quot;flavor text&quot;, this change in design philosophy seems good to me, even if I acknowledge that it causes trouble for other tables.&nbsp; Certainly, the merits of that change in design philosophy are worth debating.&nbsp; I'm not sure what I'm going to think after a couple years, but it's refreshing now.&nbsp; I can imagine my husband playing 5e and having fun, whereas our experiment with the 4e starter set did not go well.&nbsp; Personally, I think it will be very interesting to see how well the DMG and errata satisfy the precision desires of groups more inclined to tactics and optimization.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 6321105, member: 54710"] I think there is less of a dichotomy between "playstyle preference" and "good group fix" than you suggest. I see it as more of a spectrum. There are plenty of rules that require a "good group fix" if the group has a particular play style, but work fine in groups (who may be good or bad at fixing) with a different style. Lots of groups would be bothered by a magic missile that is better than fireball, but - [I]evidently[/I] - rules like martial healing and rest dynamics draw a more varied response. Some of those positive responses are people suggesting "good group fixes", but others are from groups where the issue just never came up. To take the martial healing example, there were some people who suggested how to tweak or narrate the rule to get around the realism issue, but other groups just thought it was awesome. If you just like how a rule works, you don't need a "good group fix." What I think Mike and the rest of the WotC design team concluded (but wasn't stated in Mike's off-hand remark) is that there is a complexity cost in trying to tighten up the rules that they just weren't willing to pay. I don't want to go into the merits of "the rule that dare not speak its name," but I'm guessing the design team just couldn't come up with a simple version of the rule that did what they wanted without generating the potentially boring incentive that has taken over so many threads. As a consequence, they pushed the default form of the game to one where the rules are less precise and, in certain ways, less balanced. Groups with a higher emphasis on tactical optimization may require more "good group fixing" for that kind of game. But as someone who adjusted 4e to be [I]less precise[/I] and to give mechanical significance to "flavor text", this change in design philosophy seems good to me, even if I acknowledge that it causes trouble for other tables. Certainly, the merits of that change in design philosophy are worth debating. I'm not sure what I'm going to think after a couple years, but it's refreshing now. I can imagine my husband playing 5e and having fun, whereas our experiment with the 4e starter set [I]did not go well[/I]. Personally, I think it will be very interesting to see how well the DMG and errata satisfy the precision desires of groups more inclined to tactics and optimization. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification