Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5845903" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't know about 'necessary evil' <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=";)" /> but yeah. I think basically if the game is too much like 3.5 or PF there's also not a huge reason for people playing those games to switch either. I suppose the same goes for earlier editions as well. The game needs to allow for something LIKE the style of game you can get with any of the existing editions, but different and better in a general sense. More transparent, easier to run, easier to house rule, etc. Frankly I think basically 4e-like core mechanics, as much as that makes some people gnash their teeth. That also provides for things that 4e shows us were clearly considered necessary going forward. Rules that can be incrementally updated and presented in a way that is regular and compatible with reasonable online tools like what DDI provides. I think there is a lot of angst about details of previous editions that really weren't as central to the play of the game as many people seem to think, like how attacks and saves work exactly, defenses, always high d20 based mechanics, etc. I'd personally put even more things in that category, but certainly general exception-based design. That will be a basic requirement for a 'modular' game anyway. IMHO beyond that a lot of things that 4e did make good defaults. Classes with fairly closely balanced combat capability, clearly defined class design goals, and some standardized types of progression. Lots of things can be built on that base, and it isn't too hard to introduce LESS regular or balanced options on top of that, whereas you will never re-engineer the core mechanics of any of the past editions to do that stuff. At best it would be futile as it would end up just as different from old style D&D as 4e is, so what would be the point of doing that exercise twice? Honestly I almost question the real need for an incompatible new edition in a full mechanical sense at all. Different presentation of options and a wider range of options is really the main thing required. OTOH saying "new edition" and removing the burden of strict compatibility is convenient in a lot of ways. It certainly has PR value, though the backlash from rapid edition thrashing may turn out to outweigh that...</blockquote>

Verification