Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6150100" data-attributes="member: 6696971">There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all).We're over 1.5 years into this effort now. Every time I see a post denouncing somethings inclusion that is clearly modular, I just blink in disbelief. If this game is supposed to be a (a) &quot;modular, big tent, unity edition,&quot; then the most fundamental premise is that there will be options in the game that you will not use and that you can happily ignore. The idea that (b) &quot;anti-&lt;n&gt;&quot; lobbies should be vetting/quality-controlling &quot;pro-&lt;n&gt;&quot; modules, and then disallowing them based on their &quot;anti-&lt;n&gt;&quot; sensibilities, is anathema to the alleged design ethos of a modular, unity edition. If anyone's sense is that the 5e (a) design ethos is compatible with this (b) design approach and that the two are not mutually exclusive, I would love to hear that reasoning. People clarify statements all the time on here with &quot;play what you like&quot; or &quot;YMMV&quot; (which is basically implicit). Whether someone's opinion is that something should be disallowed entirely (eg no modules allowing for it) or &quot;this shouldn't be core/basic&quot; is not implicit. Therefore, it would be nice if these statements were clarified with such a caveat. Because taking the time to write a post disparaging the potential inclusion of something that will clearly be modular (of which won't affect your gameplay) implies that you feel that &quot;modular, big tent, unity edition&quot; is boiler plate bunk. I mean, you can do it. Have at it. But what do you expect the takeaway to be from the readership?** However, given that, Background Traits seem to be pretty incoherent with that expectation so I would assume that they will not be core/basic. </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6150100, member: 6696971"] There is no way that a hard, scene-reframing narrative authority resource system (for mundanes or for all characters) will be part of the core/basic 5e experience. No way, no how. That is abundantly clear. 0 chance. ** It will be a module (if included at all). We're over 1.5 years into this effort now. Every time I see a post denouncing somethings inclusion that is clearly modular, I just blink in disbelief. If this game is supposed to be a (a) "modular, big tent, unity edition," then the most fundamental premise is that there will be options in the game that you will not use and that you can happily ignore. The idea that (b) "anti-<n>" lobbies should be vetting/quality-controlling "pro-<n>" modules, and then disallowing them based on their "anti-<n>" sensibilities, is anathema to the alleged design ethos of a modular, unity edition. If anyone's sense is that the 5e (a) design ethos is compatible with this (b) design approach and that the two are not mutually exclusive, I would love to hear that reasoning. People clarify statements all the time on here with "play what you like" or "YMMV" (which is basically implicit). Whether someone's opinion is that something should be disallowed entirely (eg no modules allowing for it) or "this shouldn't be core/basic" is not implicit. Therefore, it would be nice if these statements were clarified with such a caveat. Because taking the time to write a post disparaging the potential inclusion of something that will clearly be modular (of which won't affect your gameplay) implies that you feel that "modular, big tent, unity edition" is boiler plate bunk. I mean, you can do it. Have at it. But what do you expect the takeaway to be from the readership? [SIZE=1]** However, given that, Background Traits seem to be pretty incoherent with that expectation so I would assume that they will not be core/basic. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification