Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 4822528" data-attributes="member: 53980">While I can only speak for myself, I think you may confusing an increasing interest in certain HF elements with a dislike of S&amp;S.&nbsp; I don't think that D&amp;D is any worse at modeling HF than it is with S&amp;S.&nbsp; I also have doubts that people want to play &quot;pure&quot; HF, particularly as you define it.I enjoy continuous storylines.&nbsp; I enjoy epic storylines.&nbsp; I enjoy creating a character with personality and background depth (which I find rather difficult when creating a &quot;disposable&quot; character).That said, I also enjoy being challenged, both as a character and as a player.&nbsp; I enjoy the threat of death, and I've enjoyed the deaths of quite a few of my characters, despite that they were characters who I enjoyed playing.&nbsp; I don't want the divine Creator (or the DM) to hand me success on a silver platter regardless of whether I act cleverly or like an idiot.&nbsp; I want to earn my success, though I'd prefer it with only one or two character deaths at most (in other words, I enjoy a challenge but the DM ought not to make things &quot;stupid hard&quot; so long as I don't do something really stupid).IMO, my group uses elements of both HF and S&amp;S in our games.&nbsp; I think the flexibility of D&amp;D, to play to a particular group's preferences, is a strength rather than a flaw.&nbsp; I suppose that if there are those who want to play D&amp;D as close to HF as absolutely possible, some house rules might be in order, but I honestly think that changing the game itself (ie, making 5e a &quot;true&quot; HF game) would be a mistake.Don't confuse an increasing trend towards aspects of HF for a general dislike of S&amp;S.&nbsp; Plenty of people like both to varying degrees.&nbsp; I'm not sure there is as significant a divide between HF and S&amp;S as you seem to believe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 4822528, member: 53980"] While I can only speak for myself, I think you may confusing an increasing interest in certain HF elements with a dislike of S&S. I don't think that D&D is any worse at modeling HF than it is with S&S. I also have doubts that people want to play "pure" HF, particularly as you define it. I enjoy continuous storylines. I enjoy epic storylines. I enjoy creating a character with personality and background depth (which I find rather difficult when creating a "disposable" character). That said, I also enjoy being challenged, both as a character and as a player. I enjoy the threat of death, and I've enjoyed the deaths of quite a few of my characters, despite that they were characters who I enjoyed playing. I don't want the divine Creator (or the DM) to hand me success on a silver platter regardless of whether I act cleverly or like an idiot. I want to [i]earn[/i] my success, though I'd prefer it with only one or two character deaths at most (in other words, I enjoy a challenge but the DM ought not to make things "stupid hard" so long as I don't do something really stupid). IMO, my group uses elements of both HF and S&S in our games. I think the flexibility of D&D, to play to a particular group's preferences, is a strength rather than a flaw. I suppose that if there are those who want to play D&D as close to HF as absolutely possible, some house rules might be in order, but I honestly think that changing the game itself (ie, making 5e a "true" HF game) would be a mistake. Don't confuse an increasing trend towards aspects of HF for a general dislike of S&S. Plenty of people like both to varying degrees. I'm not sure there is as significant a divide between HF and S&S as you seem to believe. [/QUOTE]

Verification