Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Todd Roybark" data-source="post: 7964452" data-attributes="member: 6920677">How is my analysis of my own personal reasons for leaving 2nd Edition ‘dubious’.Are you, @bild91 claiming I am not self aware?Are you claiming that 5e D&amp;D should only support&nbsp; One Style of Gaming?I’m not now, nor have ever, said that.&nbsp; Neither has Oofta, from what I have read from his posts.Are you claiming that the philosophy of The Balance, as described&nbsp; in MToF, does not cast Devils, Illithids, and Gith races as necessary and sometimes countervailing forces?What, I AM claiming, is: I think, you did not actually read my post <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😄" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f604.png" title="Grinning face with smiling eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :smile:" data-shortname=":smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />(Which is cool<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="👌" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f44c.png" title="OK hand&nbsp; &nbsp; :ok_hand:" data-shortname=":ok_hand:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />)I am&nbsp; also claiming :1) At it’s base level, 5e needs a robust set of rules, that work for many&nbsp; different stories.2) This is more a definitive assertion, than a claim....I only skim the flavor text stuff on monsters.I don’t&nbsp; actually care how Orcs in Middle Earth, or Oerth, or Aberil, or Ravinica are described. I only care about cool monsters, and how I will use them in my game.Any monster I use, is going to get a rinse, and I wash before I use it, and then be modified to fit the campaign, I am currently playing.I don’t want to mischaracterize, but I imagine the same is true for Oofta, Lanefan, and many other DMs.If you find that all to be ‘dubious’, I am curious as in how?If 5e D&amp;D stated in the Monster Manual that No game, can have an “All Orcs are evil” approach, I would rail against that, as just as wrong headed, as any mechanical limitation that inhibits different approaches to game themes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Todd Roybark, post: 7964452, member: 6920677"] How is my [I]analysis[/I] of my own [I]personal reasons[/I] for leaving 2nd Edition ‘dubious’. Are you, @bild91 claiming I am not self aware? Are you claiming that 5e D&D should only support One Style of Gaming? I’m not now, nor have ever, said that. Neither has Oofta, from what I have read from his posts. Are you claiming that the philosophy of The Balance, as described in MToF, does not cast Devils, Illithids, and Gith races as necessary and sometimes countervailing forces? [I]What, I AM claiming, is: I think, you did not actually read my post[/I] 😄 (Which is cool👌) I am also claiming : 1) At it’s base level, 5e needs a robust set of rules, that work for many different stories. 2) This is more a definitive assertion, than a claim....I only skim the flavor text stuff on monsters. I don’t actually care how Orcs in Middle Earth, or Oerth, or Aberil, or Ravinica are described. I only care about cool monsters, and how I will use them in my game. Any monster I use, is going to get a rinse, and I wash before I use it, and then be modified to fit the campaign, I am currently playing. I don’t want to mischaracterize, but I imagine the same is true for Oofta, Lanefan, and many other DMs. If you find that all to be ‘dubious’, I [I]am[/I] curious as in how? If 5e D&D stated in the Monster Manual that No game, can have an “All Orcs are evil” approach, I would rail against that, as just as wrong headed, as any mechanical limitation that inhibits different approaches to game themes. [/QUOTE]

Verification