Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean of course any design choice will exclude some potential players. If I open a seafood restaurant I will be excluding customers that hate fish or are allergic to it. But this is not any sort of personal slight, it is just a natural part of designing anything.

 

[TwoSix]

I really don't think so. They specifically leaned the game towards a particular playstyle and thus, away from other playstyles. Therefore, fans of those other playstyles may feel less included. This is practically Newtonian to my mind.

The problem here is that assumes that playstyle preferences are some immutable thing that can't change over time.

 

[soviet]

The problem here is that assumes that playstyle preferences are some immutable thing that can't change over time.

I only like chocolate ice cream, every meal I eat is chocolate ice cream, anyone that ever eats any other kind of food is morally suspect, I'm not even sure that non- 'chocolate ice cream' counts as real food, any advert that isn't for chocolate ice cream is bullying, any restaurant that doesn't serve chocolate ice cream is discriminatory.

 

[Maxperson]

And now we have a nice visual of Annabelle kicked out on her bed with a steaming cup of tea, idly scrolling through old texts on her smartslate and we roll some dice and mark down an Asset or progress the clock towards one.

 

[zakael19]

View attachment 429106

More post-post apocalypse sci-fi, and slightly different ages, and yeah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem here is that assumes that playstyle preferences are some immutable thing that can't change over time.

How so? You can't assume that tastes are going to change, for any given people and to any given extent, so there's no downside to shifting the game. Some tastes change, others don't. If you shift what your game cares about, and especially if you do so blatantly like 4e did, you will leave some people behind. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean it isn't a problem for others. And in 4e's it clearly was a problem for some.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I only like chocolate ice cream, every meal I eat is chocolate ice cream, anyone that ever eats any other kind of food is morally suspect, I'm not even sure that non- 'chocolate ice cream' counts as real food, any advert that isn't for chocolate ice cream is bullying, any restaurant that doesn't serve chocolate ice cream is discriminatory.

That's a bad metaphor, so I'm going to assume you're making an attempt at humor. No one is saying one flavor all the time, but chocolate should still be in the mix, and not ignored because the ice cream maker thinks people like strawberry now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

View attachment 429106

What does this mean?

 

[soviet]

That's a bad metaphor, so I'm going to assume you're making an attempt at humor. No one is saying one flavor all the time, but chocolate should still be in the mix, and not ignored because the ice cream maker thinks people like strawberry now.

Why not? Why can't the ice cream maker decide to serve only strawberry now?

 

[soviet]

How so? You can't assume that tastes are going to change, for any given people and to any given extent, so there's no downside to shifting the game. Some tastes change, others don't.

Why do people who want to stick with the old edition need to buy the new edition? What's the point of a new edition other than to do new things?

If you shift what your game cares about, and especially if you do so blatantly like 4e did, you will leave some people behind. Just because you're not one of them doesn't mean it isn't a problem for others. And in 4e's it clearly was a problem for some.

Every significant edition change has left some people behind and brought some people in. Is 5e obliged to bring in 4e style warlords and Come and Get It? Is it obliged to support player defined stakes and group worldbuilding?