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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5883220" data-attributes="member: 27160">I got the idea from the fact that you said:To which I replied:To which you replied:So, levels have always modelled superheroic abilities in D&D, and you want something else instead of superheroic abilities, but you also want D&D. D&D has levels, so you want a "D&D" that has no levels, but is still the "inclusive D&D" so still does have levels.To me, there only seems to be one complicating factor - that you insist on calling any roleplaying game "D&D".Through copious houserules, sure.Look, if you are really this invested in having whatever you play called "D&D" just buy the IP and stick the label on every game you ever play - no problem for me.I'm a gamer; I play D&D. I play a whole range of styles, but I don't expect or even want D&D to cater to all of them. Frankly, I'm not interested in "unifying" all the different styles I play, never mind mixing in all the (potential) styles I don't play/haven't played yet. As someone else put it quite evocatively, I like steak and I like chocolate, but that doesn't mean I like chocolate-flavoured steak.Right - because they houseruled it. In some cases I've seen the "houserules" go to the extent of making what is essentially a different game. That's fine; they are allowed to do that! If they want to call what they are doing "D&D" they can even do that - the worst it will be is a bit confusing, but I think we've all got used to it by now.I think the "whole point" of a "unifying edition" is to get as many people to buy the thing, to be brutally honest - for whatever personal reason they may have.What I am hoping will happen is that they will make a coherent game that is good for something, and maybe that is pretty flexible and captures the spirit of D&D setting elements, and that the "D&D Next will be all things to all men" stuff will get lots of gamers to at least try it and have a chance to discover just what the game is good at (which was one of the things most notably screwed up with 4e's launch).Well, they are all roleplaying, that's for sure. "D&D" is nothing more than a trademark property of a published roleplaying system, but you seem to have some model in your head in which it is something different - possibly even identical with "roleplaying" - and what you call "D&D" in that otherworld I can't really know or allow for.I'm very, very happy to have an "inclusive attitude" towards my hobby - and that hobby is roleplaying games. "D&D" is just one published set of rules. It cannot be "inclusive". It can be "flexible", up to a point, before it becomes so vague as to be worthless, but published sets of rules do not "include" or "exclude" anybody.There is the wish to play the RPG you want to play.There is wanting to play an RPG called "D&D".People like to play a huge range of RPGs, so if everyone took the view that they want both of these things, some will be disappointed.The first of the wishes is natural and to be expected. The second is irrational and potentially causes conflict. So, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to pursue the first one and let the second be an incidental.I am interested in D&D Next. If it's a game I want to play, I'll play it. If it's not a game I want to play, I won't. But I'm not about to insist that it does what everybody wants of it, because I don't think that's possible.As far as I'm concerned, if you have "toggles" you have different games - but maybe this would be a really smart move for WotC. There do seem to be a number of people who are very heavily invested in having what they play be called "D&D" on the cover, so publishing a whole range of, say, 3-4 games, all with the brand name "D&D" on them could be a winner. The design focus should, in that case, include making sure that the components of the different games are clearly identified and their use explained - without insinuating too hard that they are actually different games... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification