Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7759312" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Does anyone care if Mearls mows his lawn regularly? Or that he takes out the trash every day? Of course not. Mearls is the topic of discussion because if his position on the D&D design team. So, any and all criticism is in that regard. None of this is about whether Mearls is a “lazy person”.So, a criticism that 5E has lazy design is in fact a criticism of Mearls’s work. That it is lazy. That he is a lazy designer. I don’t know why the critics are balking about this. Commit to it, people. You’re saying something about the man’s work, and it’s not something positive. I for one don’t think most of 5E’s design is lazy. I do think there are areas where it is far less specific, far less codified, than prior editions. But I believe that is intentional, and I think most of these areas were given much consideration, and these choices were made deliberately. Take the “magic item economy” for example. People have very strong opinions about it, based on comments in this thread and many others. It seems to be a big deal to many people. Some prefer a low magic setting, where magic items are rare and only discovered in ancient ruins or mystic locations. Others prefer magic items to be treated like the latest technological commodity, bought and sold everywhere. So what were they supposed to do? Devote time and space to rules for magical economy that would be ignored by half the audience, unsatisfactory for another quarter of the audience, and of passing use for the remainder? Why do that when it’s clearly better for each type of group to decide how they want to handle this aspect of the game? Is that laziness or pragmatism? I think it’s the latter.</blockquote>

Verification