Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="atanakar" data-source="post: 7941753" data-attributes="member: 65762">I don't disagree that some rules of 3.5 and 4e are better written when taken individually.After a long play test and many surveys the designers decided they needed to create a game that was entry level and that was appealing to the «soft clienteles» of both the TSR and D20 periods. The risk of alienating the hard core Old School and d20 Proselytes was not a risk, since it was going to happen anyway. There was also the possible gain of «soft» Pathfinder players who switched because they didn't like D&amp;D4e. D&amp;D5e was designed to be strategically placed as a bridge (sweet spot) between AD&amp;D2e and D&amp;D d20.That is why D&amp;D5e is the way it is. It's simple, easy to understand and offers fast customization. It's wide and semi-vague (impressionist) as opposed narrow and focused (hyper realist) like d20 and 4e. This design strategy allows each «table» to play the game the way they want - just like during the old school era, as opposed to the d20 and 4e era in which the rules attempted to force every «table» to strive to play a single (correct) way. Plugging hyper realist rules into an impressionistic system does not work.I vastly prefer the D&amp;D 5e design approach. Honestly, D&amp;D hasn't felt like D&amp;D to me since I moved from AD&amp;D2e to D&amp;D3e. Now with D&amp;D 5e I have the same «feel good» buzz I used to get in the 80s-90s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="atanakar, post: 7941753, member: 65762"] I don't disagree that some rules of 3.5 and 4e are better written when taken individually. After a long play test and many surveys the designers decided they needed to create a game that was [B]entry level[/B] and that was appealing to the «[B]soft clienteles[/B]» of both the TSR and D20 periods. The risk of alienating the hard core Old School and d20 Proselytes was not a risk, since it was going to happen anyway. There was also the possible gain of «[B]soft[/B]» Pathfinder players who switched because they didn't like D&D4e. D&D5e was designed to be strategically placed as a [B]bridge[/B] (sweet spot) between AD&D2e and D&D d20. That is why D&D5e is the way it is. It's simple, easy to understand and offers fast customization. It's wide and semi-vague ([B]impressionist[/B]) as opposed narrow and focused ([B]hyper realist[/B]) like d20 and 4e. This design strategy allows each «[B]table[/B]» to play the game the way they want - just like during the old school era, as opposed to the d20 and 4e era in which the rules attempted to [B]force[/B] every «table» to strive to play a single ([B]correct[/B]) way. Plugging hyper realist rules into an impressionistic system does not work. I vastly prefer the D&D 5e design approach. Honestly, D&D hasn't felt like D&D to me since I moved from AD&D2e to D&D3e. Now with D&D 5e I have the same «[B]feel good[/B]» buzz I used to get in the 80s-90s. [/QUOTE]

Verification