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: 5884180" data-attributes="member: 27160">OK, but I didn't get the overall impression that it was the "gonzo abilities" that were really the issue - more the escalating hit points and defences. The suggestion is that this edition will have a much shallower defence escalation, but hit points seem still to be expected to increase with level - isn't that the core of the "falling damage" and "mundane archer" problems?And, if level does not increase hit points, or defences, or 'to hit' bonuses or "gonzo abilities" - what is the purpose of retaining the idea of "levels"?I would point out that, in OD&D, an 8th level fighting man was labelled "superhero"...Having an "ordinary hero" at level 1 is easy; but if they are still "ordinary heroes" at level 15 I have to ask what all the "levelling" stuff was all about...No, of course not <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" />I was just frustrated with the misunderstandings - one you pointed out, another I will discuss below.And this is where I think the second miscommunication comes in.To me, this is a nonsensical set of assertions. I can only assume that we are talking about radically different things. Not every style I play is D&D. Especially if I am playing HârnMaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Traveller, Shadowrun or Universalis.To me, "D&D" is not a style of play at all - it's a set of (published) roleplaying game rules. As such, it is not capable of being "inclusive", "accepting" or anything else you call out for in the following section of your post.You seem to me to conflate two things, here.One is "D&D the roleplaying game", which is a piece of collected intellectual property published and expanded upon by the IP owner, currently Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc.The other is some sort of cultural-political entity I can perhaps best identify as "D&D fandom". This entity, as a cultural and political phenomenon, most certainly could be "inclusive" and "accepting".Viewed in this light, perhaps what you want to see in D&D Next is a manifesto (which is inclusive and accepting) for this cultural-political entity? Presumably with some roleplaying rules and guidelines included as well?If this is the case then we are just looking for different things. I just want the published roleplaying rules system (if it's any good). I have no real interest in any published manifesto, and I would much rather see the wider (and, by definition, more inclusive and accepting) cultural-political grouping of "roleplayers" cultivated and developed than any commercially-centred, product-linked subset of it.Marketing BS aside, a set of roleplaying rules can't "unify" anything. It can't even determine "playstyle" (though it can, I think, support it), let alone "unify" several of them.I don't need an "umbrella" of rules to allow me to play the styles I want to play - I'll choose what I want to use for each style, thanks very much.And I'm here on the D&D Next forums to discuss and speculate about a set of roleplaying rules that have been announced for future publication. I'm really not that interested in discussing political agendas or manifestoes for some sort of "D&D zealotry movement" and I am, in general, opposed to the identification of such a "movement" as distinct from the wider fellowship of "roleplayers".Oh, easy - because roleplayers, quite naturally, have a range of styles and conceits around which they like to focus their roleplaying. Some of them, instead of taking the rational course of simply finding or writing a system that suits their preferences, dedicate themselves to playing one specific "label" and try their damndest to haul that property toward their own preferred style. In the actual property owner (and their hired staff) this is just about functional; among customers and roleplayers in general, less so.D&D has always been a corpus of published rules and advice - nothing more and nothing less. Customers have used the product in many ways - including the quite rational way of houseruling, sometimes extensively, when the basic, published rules don't suit them. The owners of D&D have even written suggestions and advice concerning such houseruling - a fine idea!D&D Next will be added on to this corpus of published material (all being well). I will be interested in it if it provides a coherent, focussed system that supports some sort of play that I wish to engage in. I have no "beef" if this is not what it turns out to be - I have plenty of other published supports for my roleplaying already.More suggestions and guidance for houseruling I really don't need. It's not that I don't think they are useful - it's merely that I have copious amounts of them already.Well, that's really a different tenor and type of arguing than I'm talking about, but, yes, I guess it's an indication of just how argumentative we all are <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification