Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9118143" data-attributes="member: 7040132">D&amp;D is literally defined by what it has ever been. I'm not saying that it has never changed. Of course it can evolve and still be D&amp;D, and it has. Multiple times. I'm not trying to &quot;OWN&quot; a One True D&amp;D. I like most of the core conceits of D&amp;D and I like playing around with how those core conceits are explored for potential improvement. The playtest has played around with a lot of potential changes. Heck, there are changes I want that they are pulling back on (Wildshape templates and Pact Magic, for an example).You seem to be suggesting that making D&amp;D into something it has never been is a clear and obvious improvement. It isn't. It's not clear, and it's not obvious, and you have provided no example proving that it is. It's just like, your opinion, man. It just looks like you don't like the current system and want something different. I will ask again. Can you point at a game that does what you want? Or are there no games that do what you want? And if there are no games that do what you want, how can that design be the obvious improvements that are better than how 5E does it?D&amp;D doesn't have to be the thing that is changed for you to be happy. You seem to want a game that makes you happy. Why change something many like, abandoning those D&amp;D fans, for ideas that are not proveably better? Why are you the one that gets to change the definition of D&amp;D?Which of the above two arguments are accurate? They look like direct contradictions to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mirrorrorrim, post: 9118143, member: 7040132"] D&D is literally defined by what it has ever been. I'm not saying that it has never changed. Of course it can evolve and still be D&D, and it has. Multiple times. I'm not trying to "OWN" a One True D&D. I like most of the core conceits of D&D and I like playing around with how those core conceits are explored for potential improvement. The playtest has played around with a lot of potential changes. Heck, there are changes I want that they are pulling back on (Wildshape templates and Pact Magic, for an example). You seem to be suggesting that making D&D into something it has never been is a clear and obvious improvement. It isn't. It's not clear, and it's not obvious, and you have provided no example proving that it is. It's just like, your opinion, man. It just looks like you don't like the current system and want something different. I will ask again. Can you point at a game that does what you want? Or are there no games that do what you want? And if there are no games that do what you want, how can that design be the obvious improvements that are better than how 5E does it? D&D doesn't have to be the thing that is changed for you to be happy. You seem to want a game that makes you happy. Why change something many like, abandoning those D&D fans, for ideas that are not proveably better? Why are you the one that gets to change the definition of D&D? Which of the above two arguments are accurate? They look like direct contradictions to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification