*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
A small narrow but real subset of consumers certainly not sure that is a super argument.I play and run Adventurer's League. So, if it's in the official game, I have to deal with it. Streamlined game design is not just prettier, it's easier from the consumer point of view.
I play and run Adventurer's League. So, if it's in the official game, I have to deal with it. Streamlined game design is not just prettier, it's easier from the consumer point of view.
This is actually the greatest success of 5E. It has a solid chassis that can be manipulated to great extents to maximize your group's entertainment without affecting other groups. Prior editions lived and died by RAW, and 5E has tossed RAW into the garbage can (where it belongs IMO). The fact that the DM's Guild exists shows that 5E officially supports and encourages houserules, homebrew, and 3PP.I think it's great that it is so easy to homebrew.
It's an interesting question. It really depends on where you feel that majority of emphasis should be placed, I guess. The vast majority of time spent playing D&D is spent ... playing D&D. And that has nothing, or at best, little to do with character concepts. I mean, take Brad (PLEASE TAKE BRAD!) who has played Legolas, the Elven Archer, for four decades. He doesn't care about character concepts, so long as there is a pointy-eared critter that can shoot a bow.
But it's also true that, with 2.5e (the class splat books) and certainly 3e that more player engagement was fostered by making Chargen and Charop its own, well, minigame. Or if you prefer ... playing different character concepts that have meaningful mechanical differentiation. Some people really like that.
I'm just not sure how much play you get. I mean, I used to have infinite amounts of time to play, but even then, I didn't get to play full campaigns will all the different characters in just base 1e (or even B/X). Sometimes, I think that a plethora of options leads to dissatisfaction, and a continuing search for even more. That's more behavioral economics, though.
Anyway, I'd rather guard against bloat than stagnation at this time.
Somewhat cancelled off by the reduced player engagement, fostered by the same thing, from players who would rather spend their time playing their characters than building them and-or who aren't all about the system-mastery game-within-the-game.But it's also true that, with 2.5e (the class splat books) and certainly 3e that more player engagement was fostered by making Chargen and Charop its own, well, minigame.
Players feel they have to use those options because they know full well that if they don't, someone else at the table probably will; increasing that PC's odds of surviving (winning) at expense of your own. It's almost like an arms race, where the only way to truly curtail it is to not produce the arms (options) in the first place.DEFCON 1 said:I have seen in countless threads during 5E and 4E and 3E the stark belief of some players that they cannot NOT use something that is in the game-- they cannot willing nerf themselves, even if the thing they are using is something they dislike or even outright hate. If it's in the game, then they HAVE to use it, because they are not playing to their highest intelligence and skill if they aren't. And to not do so is an anathema to game playing. D&D is a game-- a game that has a "win state" (which is not to die and lose your character)-- and thus making choices that don't advance yourself towards that win state goes against everything that is holy about game playing.
As a result, the only way that person can be happy is if the game itself does not use or offer things that they don't like, thus entirely negating the need to self-nerf. If it's not in the game, then they never have to make the conscious decision NOT to use it. Their problem is solved for them.