Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6095609" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, my main question, and one that I suspect has an answer that is different from what people may think, is about that "parity and symmetry". Is it the parity and symmetry that you're actually worried about or is it the specific content of the powers and feats that 4e provided? I think, as an example, that such a system could have pretty easily delivered the entire classic D&D spell list. Why not? Obviously casting wouldn't be exactly the same, but the point is all of a sudden we're playing with a VERY different list of options, but the same basic fundamental mechanical strengths. Thus is it the MECHANICS that was an issue or the CONTENT that was the issue (and we could also ask similar questions about the presentation). I don't expect answers, but it is something that people probably SHOULD think carefully about because it has a great bearing on the reasoning for DDN's design. I question whether the right compromises are being made. I know people often resist re-examining their fundamental positions on this kind of topic. There will be a whole bunch of "that's bunk, we know exactly why we do and don't like X!" but really do we generally have that much insight into our preferences? I don't think you'll find very much evidence that humans are that introspective.</blockquote>