Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7362412" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm glad you can see how one might get that impression.&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=";)" />&nbsp; 5e still isn't simple, though.&nbsp; It's familiar to those who've played a lot of D&amp;D in the past, it's easy for them to wrap their heads around (OK, except for neo-Vancian casting, that take's a little effort), but it's not any less complicated at it's core than any other d20 game.&nbsp; It has less material out, and that slower pace of release gives it less &quot;shelf shock,&quot; and, not coincidentally, evokes the feel of the classic game, back when TSR would wait for the proceeds of one book to fund the publication of the next... &nbsp;You could do either or both.&nbsp; OK, it'd be a lot easier to run 4e fast-and-loose (the DM could just do it - heck, I have) than to balance 3e and make it easy to run (that'd be deep re-design).&nbsp; 5e mechanics could conceivably even be used as the core of such a system.&nbsp; &nbsp;I feel like 'focused' isn't exactly the opposite of gimped...And 5e has had something of an identity crisis.&nbsp; When it was first put forward, the idea was a D&amp;D for everyone who ever loved D&amp;D, regardless of edition.&nbsp; But, from the beginning, the focus when they came looking for feedback always seemed to be emulating the 'classic game' (without defining that, I assume TSR era, or 1e or B/X or the like).&nbsp; Clearly, the Core 3 books and their content point most heavily at the classic game.&nbsp; Catering to those who loved D&amp;D of other editions/periods than the classic one was put off to optional rules and later supplements.&nbsp; The Warlord is increasingly overdue to become part of that.&nbsp; It is neither.&nbsp; It's D&amp;D.&nbsp; Needlessly complicated and counter-intuitive to the new player.&nbsp; But, yes, that's the beauty of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7362412, member: 996"] I'm glad you can see how one might get that impression. ;) 5e still isn't simple, though. It's familiar to those who've played a lot of D&D in the past, it's easy for them to wrap their heads around (OK, except for neo-Vancian casting, that take's a little effort), but it's not any less complicated at it's core than any other d20 game. It has less material out, and that slower pace of release gives it less "shelf shock," and, not coincidentally, evokes the feel of the classic game, back when TSR would wait for the proceeds of one book to fund the publication of the next... You could do either or both. OK, it'd be a lot easier to run 4e fast-and-loose (the DM could just do it - heck, I have) than to balance 3e and make it easy to run (that'd be deep re-design). 5e mechanics could conceivably even be used as the core of such a system. I feel like 'focused' isn't exactly the opposite of gimped... And 5e has had something of an identity crisis. When it was first put forward, the idea was a D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, regardless of edition. But, from the beginning, the focus when they came looking for feedback always seemed to be emulating the 'classic game' (without defining that, I assume TSR era, or 1e or B/X or the like). Clearly, the Core 3 books and their content point most heavily at the classic game. Catering to those who loved D&D of other editions/periods than the classic one was put off to optional rules and later supplements. The Warlord is increasingly overdue to become part of that. It is neither. It's D&D. Needlessly complicated and counter-intuitive to the new player. But, yes, that's the beauty of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification