Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lurker37" data-source="post: 3999349" data-attributes="member: 9522">Since there have been complaints about lack of bias in other posts:&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> If I'm running a game, I do not want to be told what I must include in it. If I want, for example, to run a game where magic is scare, misunderstood and generally frowned upon, and only one or two people in an entire country able to harness it, then I absolutely do not want to include any magical orders, and having feats named after said orders is both inconvenient for me and possibly confusing for my players - to the point where it has the potential to disrupt play. If I'm running a game where magic is common, and taught and controlled strictly by the state, then I want the training to come from the state academies, and not from some secret (and probably illegal) order. Again, the feat names actively interfere with the running of the game.Finally, if I'm running a game where such orders do exist, I want the freedom to make up my own names for them to fit the setting, not be obliged to use theirs.The same applies to martial feats, races etc etc etc.I have never used a prefabricated setting, and never intend to. For me, D&amp;D isn't about playing a provided setting - it's about having the tools to build your own. For the first time in 30 years, it looks like an edition of D&amp;D is going to hinder that.I am disappointed that the writers have apparently chosen to go this route. I'm not sure they realised how much of the D&amp;D market doesn't actually play in their published settings. Or perhaps they do and thought this would force us to adopt them.Either way, I'm worried, and hoping that we're all reading too much into the information we have so far.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lurker37, post: 3999349, member: 9522"] Since there have been complaints about lack of bias in other posts: ;) If I'm running a game, I do not want to be told what I [b]must[/b] include in it. If I want, for example, to run a game where magic is scare, misunderstood and generally frowned upon, and only one or two people in an entire country able to harness it, then I absolutely do not want to include [b]any[/b] magical orders, and having feats named after said orders is both inconvenient for me and possibly confusing for my players - to the point where it has the potential to disrupt play. If I'm running a game where magic is common, and taught and controlled strictly by the state, then I want the training to come from the state academies, and not from some secret (and probably illegal) order. Again, the feat names actively interfere with the running of the game. Finally, if I'm running a game where such orders do exist, I want the freedom to make up my own names for them to fit the setting, not be obliged to use theirs. The same applies to martial feats, races etc etc etc. I have never used a prefabricated setting, and never intend to. For me, D&D isn't about playing a provided setting - it's about having the tools to build your own. For the first time in 30 years, it looks like an edition of D&D is going to hinder that. I am disappointed that the writers have apparently chosen to go this route. I'm not sure they realised how much of the D&D market doesn't actually play in their published settings. Or perhaps they do and thought this would force us to adopt them. Either way, I'm worried, and hoping that we're all reading too much into the information we have so far. [/QUOTE]

Verification