Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5888632" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>It isn't a straw man, you're whole basis of argument amounts to touting older mechanics, even in the face of all their drawbacks which have been overcome over and over again in both other systems and in later editions of D&amp;D. Many of these arguments DO amount to &quot;it was better in the old days&quot; from my perspective. I know you'll disagree with that, and that's fine, so it goes <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=";)" /> I also think there's been (at least with 3e and 4e) a concerted conscious attempt to specifically improve on existing mechanics. While it is perfectly possible to argue the merits of any specific newer or older mechanic overall the game system has improved with time. Designers learn with each new iteration. My concern is that the attitude of &quot;back to the past&quot; is not focusing on improving the game, and that should be a big part of the focus in any edition, otherwise what is the point? I still own 1e and 2e (and a couple versions of Basic and OD&amp;D for that matter) and I can D/L numerous OSR games. While I think it will be great if 5e captures a wider range of play styles and allows the game to focus more widely on different ones I don't think rolling back the clock is a worthwhile goal. IMHO the default assumption in core 5e would best be on flexible modern mechanics. They are going to be a LOT more capable of providing a wider range of play styles than the mechanics of AD&amp;D were, which IMHO was rather inflexible and brittle.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5888632, member: 82106"] It isn't a straw man, you're whole basis of argument amounts to touting older mechanics, even in the face of all their drawbacks which have been overcome over and over again in both other systems and in later editions of D&D. Many of these arguments DO amount to "it was better in the old days" from my perspective. I know you'll disagree with that, and that's fine, so it goes ;) I also think there's been (at least with 3e and 4e) a concerted conscious attempt to specifically improve on existing mechanics. While it is perfectly possible to argue the merits of any specific newer or older mechanic overall the game system has improved with time. Designers learn with each new iteration. My concern is that the attitude of "back to the past" is not focusing on improving the game, and that should be a big part of the focus in any edition, otherwise what is the point? I still own 1e and 2e (and a couple versions of Basic and OD&D for that matter) and I can D/L numerous OSR games. While I think it will be great if 5e captures a wider range of play styles and allows the game to focus more widely on different ones I don't think rolling back the clock is a worthwhile goal. IMHO the default assumption in core 5e would best be on flexible modern mechanics. They are going to be a LOT more capable of providing a wider range of play styles than the mechanics of AD&D were, which IMHO was rather inflexible and brittle. [/QUOTE]

Verification