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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8567563" data-attributes="member: 7026617">No, I don't believe I am.I have every faith if there was the sort of support for it that early editions had for the styles they dislike, they'd still be complaining.The truth is, prior to 3e, D&D had crap support for higher power play; it needed a lot more work than TSR was willing to do to do so.  D&D is not a game structure that easily supports multiple power levels, because there's too many moving parts, and those will always be built with some default power level in mind; they always have been.  So doing the additional design work to seriously support multiple power levels has always been something that was at best done in a half-way sort of fashion (if you think in most older versions of D&D just starting with better attributes was going to make the bottom end seem significantly less drudgy, I have a bridge to sell you).  The proof is you can trivially sub in lower attributes as arrays or a point distribution in modern D&D versions, but would that satisfy the complaints?  No, I'm betting it wouldn't in most cases, because those aren't the only design elements that influence this.So, in practice, its back to the same thing: who's ox is being gored.I haven't suggested it hasn't.  What I've suggested is the complaints about the changes add up to "It now serves a different set of needs than mine."  Well, duh.  The fact they aren't someone's needs doesn't mean the change was a mistake; it just means that its at least perceived that there's more people wanting what it serves now than what it served in the AD&D1e days.(I'm still not even convinced in the early days that it was serving a lot of people that well, but for the first couple years most of the alternatives weren't much different, and after that the networking advantage the system had was pretty well set in).</blockquote>

Verification