Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrightdjohn" data-source="post: 6259560" data-attributes="member: 43519">The bottom line for a lot of us is that we played D&amp;D a certain way all the way until 2008.&nbsp;&nbsp; During that time I'm sure others played differently.&nbsp; That was an advantage.&nbsp; Yes in a few instances over that time period especially with optional rules, we ignored stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp; The heart of the game though was playable.I dislike the use of the term abstraction vs simulationism.&nbsp; It misses the true divide.&nbsp; You can love abstraction and simulation.&nbsp; Just ask any player who plays the wargame &quot;Third Reich&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a massive abstraction.&nbsp; You don't worry a bit about individual men in the army.&nbsp; You are though trying to simulate warfare.I also admit that there are concessions to reality that both sides make.&nbsp; Personally I've always felt my approach required the least.&nbsp; I only have to believe that my PC heroically battles one while wounded.&nbsp; That is it.&nbsp; The problem is when the game puts in mechanics that really can only be interpreted one way.&nbsp; Basically people like myself can't even use those mechanics.&nbsp; If they are rare enough then we will do what we have always done.&nbsp; We will houserule them out.&nbsp;&nbsp; If though the entire game is so full of them that they really can't be ignored, then we will ignore 5e.&nbsp;&nbsp; 4e fooled us.&nbsp; We won't be fooled by 5e.&nbsp; Everyone like myself that I know has every intention of carefully examining the game prior to purchase.&nbsp; Day one, D&amp;D will suffer sales losses if it goes too far the other way.So given that situation, what is the solution?&nbsp; Well for one I am hoping for modularity.&nbsp; A clean modularity that is easy to plug in or plug out.&nbsp; I don't have high hopes though because I don't think the devs really fully understand the issue well enough to make the decisions.&nbsp; I do though realize because of the surveys that perhaps 5e will be very light on these objectionable mechanics.&nbsp;&nbsp; In that case see above.&nbsp; That would though I'd think anger some of the other side.&nbsp; I don't know.From a business perspective, I believe damage on a miss is a colossal mistake.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was not be asked for by anyone though now it's defended to the death.&nbsp; It offended the very people the game appears to be targeting.&nbsp; Just not a wise move.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wrightdjohn, post: 6259560, member: 43519"] The bottom line for a lot of us is that we played D&D a certain way all the way until 2008. During that time I'm sure others played differently. That was an advantage. Yes in a few instances over that time period especially with optional rules, we ignored stuff. The heart of the game though was playable. I dislike the use of the term abstraction vs simulationism. It misses the true divide. You can love abstraction and simulation. Just ask any player who plays the wargame "Third Reich". It's a massive abstraction. You don't worry a bit about individual men in the army. You are though trying to simulate warfare. I also admit that there are concessions to reality that both sides make. Personally I've always felt my approach required the least. I only have to believe that my PC heroically battles one while wounded. That is it. The problem is when the game puts in mechanics that really can only be interpreted one way. Basically people like myself can't even use those mechanics. If they are rare enough then we will do what we have always done. We will houserule them out. If though the entire game is so full of them that they really can't be ignored, then we will ignore 5e. 4e fooled us. We won't be fooled by 5e. Everyone like myself that I know has every intention of carefully examining the game prior to purchase. Day one, D&D will suffer sales losses if it goes too far the other way. So given that situation, what is the solution? Well for one I am hoping for modularity. A clean modularity that is easy to plug in or plug out. I don't have high hopes though because I don't think the devs really fully understand the issue well enough to make the decisions. I do though realize because of the surveys that perhaps 5e will be very light on these objectionable mechanics. In that case see above. That would though I'd think anger some of the other side. I don't know. From a business perspective, I believe damage on a miss is a colossal mistake. It was not be asked for by anyone though now it's defended to the death. It offended the very people the game appears to be targeting. Just not a wise move. [/QUOTE]

Verification