Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6970000" data-attributes="member: 996">Two of his assumptions have been stated, outright, by Mr. Mearls in the past 1) magic items are not assumed and 2) 6-8 encounter days.&nbsp; The other two ('lowest common denominator' &amp; 'inexperienced players') I've not heard articulated by anyone from WotC.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can see negatively-spinning 5e's goal of inclusiveness towards fans of all past editions being 'catering to the lowest common denominator,' but well, it's just being negative.&nbsp; The closest I recall Mike wandering to considering 'inexperienced' players was thinking about what made the game appealing when 'we' (he &amp; his playtesters, I assume) were new players (which simply dovetails with the whole 'classic feel' goal).Sure.&nbsp; Why does it matter?&nbsp; We're not forced to use the modules.&nbsp; (BTW, thanks for saying 'module,' instead of 'AP,' I feel less alone somehow......do me a favor and say 'variant' instead of 'house rule' sometime.)&nbsp; <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=";)" />The designers claim two of 'em, and as to why they don't follow their own guidelines?&nbsp; Well, they don't need to.&nbsp; Neither do you.&nbsp; Maybe the writer of the given module felt that the 'story' was better-served by deviating?(Maybe the guidelines are just there for the minority of DMs who want to aim for a balanced/playable game, while the main thrust of the game is intentionally weighted towards the 5MWD &amp; caster supremacy?)&nbsp; (Ah, it feels good to sound cynical again, I was get'n too kumbaya there...)&nbsp;Not too surprising, each set of monsters had only one party to crush on-screen, while the party is going to take on many challenges...Well, &quot;transitioning&quot; from 3.5/PF. Not if you're able to adapt it to your needs.&nbsp; Turn on feats &amp; MCing, use the stuff from UA, etc... ...but, no, it's not a great sign.But, you were playing 3e (or at least PF?) up until you tried 5e, right?&nbsp; So what made it tolerable for 14 years then, but not for couple, now?Depends on the purpose.&nbsp; If it was to be a practical default way for everyone to run the game, maybe not such a great decision.&nbsp; If it was just to throw a bone to fans who obsess about theoretical balance, while providing a game that'd be wildly imbalanced for most everyone who actually played it...So, 50% approval rate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6970000, member: 996"] Two of his assumptions have been stated, outright, by Mr. Mearls in the past 1) magic items are not assumed and 2) 6-8 encounter days. The other two ('lowest common denominator' & 'inexperienced players') I've not heard articulated by anyone from WotC. I can see negatively-spinning 5e's goal of inclusiveness towards fans of all past editions being 'catering to the lowest common denominator,' but well, it's just being negative. The closest I recall Mike wandering to considering 'inexperienced' players was thinking about what made the game appealing when 'we' (he & his playtesters, I assume) were new players (which simply dovetails with the whole 'classic feel' goal). Sure. Why does it matter? We're not forced to use the modules. (BTW, thanks for saying 'module,' instead of 'AP,' I feel less alone somehow... ...do me a favor and say 'variant' instead of 'house rule' sometime.) ;) The designers claim two of 'em, and as to why they don't follow their own guidelines? Well, they don't need to. Neither do you. Maybe the writer of the given module felt that the 'story' was better-served by deviating? (Maybe the guidelines are just there for the minority of DMs who want to aim for a balanced/playable game, while the main thrust of the game is intentionally weighted towards the 5MWD & caster supremacy?) (Ah, it feels good to sound cynical again, I was get'n too kumbaya there...) Not too surprising, each set of monsters had only one party to crush on-screen, while the party is going to take on many challenges... Well, "transitioning" from 3.5/PF. Not if you're able to adapt it to your needs. Turn on feats & MCing, use the stuff from UA, etc... ...but, no, it's not a great sign. But, you were playing 3e (or at least PF?) up until you tried 5e, right? So what made it tolerable for 14 years then, but not for couple, now? Depends on the purpose. If it was to be a practical default way for everyone to run the game, maybe not such a great decision. If it was just to throw a bone to fans who obsess about theoretical balance, while providing a game that'd be wildly imbalanced for most everyone who actually played it... So, 50% approval rate. [/QUOTE]

Verification