Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gorice" data-source="post: 9301969" data-attributes="member: 7032863">Sorry if I insulted you. It was certainly a provocative comment, but the point was to provoke consideration. Like, what is it about 5e, specifically, that you like? Because flighty fighters, wizards with limited spells, d20s, saving throws, armour class, etc. are just tropes. These elements signify the brand of D&D, but the way the game is designed from edition to edition has changed drastically. When I say D&D the brand has overtaken D&D the game, that's what I mean.If you didn't use reaction tables, encounter distance tables, morale rules, predeclared actions in combat rounds, or random encounters in the editions that had them, which game were you actually playing? If you did, what game are you playing now? 1e and 5e are simply not the same game, not even close. This is what I mean by the power of nostalgia and branding: WotC are in the business of making us feel like it's all the same thing.Whenever someone criticises the idea that popular = good, accusations of elitism follow. I don't buy it. Firstly, because marketing works. No-one wants to admit that they can be manipulated, everyone imagines themselves a cool cynic, but the reality is that we are all deeply fallible, and truly enormous sums of money are spent every year to exploit that.Secondly, because 'lowest common denominator' isn't a criticism of the people being denominated. If person A likes spicy food, and person B does not, the dish I make to please them both will have a slight enough dusting of spice that both with find it tolerable. I end up cooking a mediocre dish in order to pander to the greatest number of people.As for self-reference of the class design: people who are comfortable with the tropes don't have a problem with it. They're also the target audience for nostalgia bait. Without that 50-year context (and even with it, frankly), the ranger and druid are bizarre and idiosyncratic.</blockquote>

Verification