Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 5915502" data-attributes="member: 16760">Okay, first off:  Bedrockgames, it's clear I misunderstood you and I'm sorry I reacted in haste.Having processed a bunch of recent posts, I think I have a better grip on just where both the subjective and objective layers of design lie.Can everyone agree on this statement of things:The types of game an individual likes is a matter of taste.  Some people like a given type of game, others dislike it.But given a type of game a designer wants to create, it can be assessed with at least some degree of objectivity whether a design succeeds or fails.As Exhibit A, I present my assessment of 4e earlier:  That it is a notably successful example of design (not perfect, but really good);  but that it is a game I personally don't much like at all.  Despite my dislike of it, I can - I think objectively - judge that it successfully produces the sort of game the designers were trying to make.  (Well, as objectively as I can judge without having played it much at all, anyway.)  Certainly I find that people who like tactical skirmish games seem to like 4e a lot - and more power to 'em.What I said earlier about M&M and Champions?  Was partly my taste and partly (I think) objective.  The objective part is that my gaming group has had notably more fun playing M&M than Champions, and the GM has had notably more fun running it.  It's just plain win-win all around.  M&M succeeds better at delivering the sort of game experience we want to have.We can give numerous reasons why M&M delivers that experience better.  It's not just a vague, "I like it better."  We can point to definite mechanics (or lack of mechanics) that facilitate the play experience we want to have.  However, our preference for that play experience as opposed to others is certainly our own subjective taste.Likewise, the experience I want to have with D&D is my own taste.  But given that taste - and I think there's good evidence that I'm far from a small minority - I can assess that AD&D failed in a number of areas to deliver it.  My assessment is objective in the sense that I can with reason point to specific mechanics (or lack thereof) that make that experience less likely or less intense.  But it's subjective in the sense that others want a different experience and I have no basis to convince them otherwise.That said, somewhat paradoxically, it was AD&D itself that gave rise to my desire.  It delivered the experience I wanted on some occasions - enough so that when it failed to deliver it on other occasions it was noticeable and annoying.  That's why I'm here - I'm very much hoping that 5e will give me a D&D that gives me the experience I want more reliably and more intensely than AD&D, or 3e, or Pathfinder.  (Though I've played a bit of PF lately, I have to say it falls down a bit regarding the experience I'm looking for as well - though in totally different ways than AD&D.)If we're all on the same page now, can we get back to wizards? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I found playing low-level wizards in AD&D to be... intensely frustrating.Don't think I don't understand what some people are saying about how they were forced to think creatively and do things outside the box.  Believe me, I do - one of my very favorite 2e campaigns was an all-thief group where the campaign premise was openly stated to be:  "Frontal assault is suicide.  You MUST be sneaky to survive."  It was an incredible amount of fun.  We had to think on our feet constantly just to keep our heads above water, and it was positively exhilarating.  (My character from that campaign, a gnomish thief/illusionist, remains my favorite D&D character of all time.)But it's one thing for the campaign to work that way by agreement, and it's another to have it forced on you by the game saying you can only cast one spell a day.  It doesn't work well in the fiction - what master wizard would turn loose a 1st-level apprentice?  (How could he possibly support himself, especially in the days before cantrips?  How could he be expected to live?  As indeed, he often did not - don't even get me started on the idea of rolling a d4 for hit points...)  And it doesn't work well in play - according to my taste, anyway.  It's just frustrating.  Back in the day, we often started things off at 3rd level just to avoid the worst parts.  (Well, to be more precise, with enough xp to get the wizards to 3rd level.)</blockquote>

Verification