Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8980210" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It seems to me that is exactly what you shouldn't do. Because the OSR pattern shows that sometimes, what fans want from something drifts from what it originally was to what they made of it.And I think that is why 5e gets compared to both 3e and 2e, the whole "AD&D3" thing. It has bellyfeel like 2e, and reduces the doublethink required to play 3.Xe the way people wanted (that is, the feeling of openness and discovery, of "others are beholden to the whims of system balance but I can break it over my knee") rather than what it actually ended up being much of the time ("you must perfectly plot out your character's growth over 20 levels and if you make any mistakes you will have invested six months of your life for no payoff.") Hence why one of the bigger criticisms from genuine 5e fans is that some of them want it to expand options a lot more (like, say, about double the options we have), and the next near-equal criticism is from folks wbo are vehemently opposed to that and would actually like to see almost all the existing options removed. The former want to bring back the openness and "I can break it" feel, while the latter want to hard avert any possibility of returning to the "do your taxes to build a character" feeling.5e works, in part, by making both sides feel they're the "winner." That's an inherently unstable equilibrium, and very likely to result in an OSR-style splintering down the line, where some folks go in the PF1e/A5E direction of "moar, MOAR" and others go in the direction of "less is more, so almost nothing is nearly everything" that many OSR games have.</blockquote>

Verification