Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8005237" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I think I tried to preemptively address this:&quot;Which can always be changed in the home campaign, but the focus leads to a dearth of excellent published material because, in my opinion, they no longer use the design space that they have with the PMP.&quot;But yes, it is a truism that you can do what you want in your home campaign. But that is no different than saying, &quot;If you don't like the use of dice in D&amp;D, you can always just insert a diceless system. After all, Mike Mearls isn't going to come jam a bunch of d20s into your unwilling hands.&quot; Or, for that matter, if someone traces the history of the negative AC and tables -&gt; THAC0 -&gt; ascending armor class, it's neither here nor there to observe that I can just change the rules. That's not really very interesting to me; what's interesting is the way in which this seemingly small change that I do not believe has been commented on very much - or if it has, I haven't seen it before and will be happy to credit it - has resulted in a change in design emphasis in published materials.So, while I appreciate that people can, and do, choose whatever they want to in their home campaigns, that's not really what I've been looking at. Instead, I've been curious as to how this one small change has effected the official published output.That is interesting. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong (always possible, the history is correct, but the thesis is new AFAIK), but &quot;Just change your homegame&quot; isn't really interesting to me. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8005237, member: 7023840"] I think I tried to preemptively address this: "Which can always be changed in the home campaign, but the focus leads to a dearth of excellent published material because, in my opinion, they no longer use the design space that they have with the PMP." But yes, it is a truism that you can do what you want in your home campaign. But that is no different than saying, "If you don't like the use of dice in D&D, you can always just insert a diceless system. After all, Mike Mearls isn't going to come jam a bunch of d20s into your unwilling hands." Or, for that matter, if someone traces the history of the negative AC and tables -> THAC0 -> ascending armor class, it's neither here nor there to observe that I can just change the rules. That's not really very interesting to me; what's interesting is the way in which this seemingly small change that I do not believe has been commented on very much - or if it has, I haven't seen it before and will be happy to credit it - has resulted in a change in design emphasis in published materials. So, while I appreciate that people can, and do, choose whatever they want to in their home campaigns, that's not really what I've been looking at. Instead, I've been curious as to how this one small change has effected the official published output. That is interesting. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong (always possible, the history is correct, but the thesis is new AFAIK), but "Just change your homegame" isn't really interesting to me. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification