Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8257722" data-attributes="member: 7006">I can't help but find it funny that even now after 6 1/2 years some people still get so annoyed that the 5E rules are just an &quot;It is what it is&quot; document.- Has the focus on Sage Advice changed over the years?&nbsp; Yeah, but so what?- Have the rules evolution perhaps not aligned with the original design intent back in 2013?&nbsp; Yeah, but so what?- Has errata begun adding one or two things to actually change rules rather than just clarify them even though way back when they said they weren't planning to do that?&nbsp; Yeah, but so what?All of this is exactly why a lot of my posts always talk about the &quot;board game&quot; of D&amp;D, and why it's not worth it to treat that like it's the important part of the game rather than the story and narrative building roleplaying part.&nbsp; Because the &quot;board game&quot; has a lot of holes, has a lot of ambiguity, has a lot of misalignment between the game rules and the &quot;narrative&quot; the rules are meant to represent, has a lot of parts that might not be all that fun to play, and most importantly turns some players into a-holes when they can't get things to work the way they want them to. There's a reason why both the 3E and 4E &quot;D&amp;D miniatures&quot; games got almost no traction in the marketplace.&nbsp; Because on their own-- without the roleplaying part layered on top-- D&amp;D combat just isn't all that great compared to other boards games out there you could be playing instead.&nbsp; And thus spending all this time hounding Jeremy and consulting Sage Advice and bickering here on EN World in an effort to make the rules airtight is like putting lipstick on a pig in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8257722, member: 7006"] I can't help but find it funny that even now after 6 1/2 years some people still get so annoyed that the 5E rules are just an "It is what it is" document. - Has the focus on Sage Advice changed over the years? Yeah, but so what? - Have the rules evolution perhaps not aligned with the original design intent back in 2013? Yeah, but so what? - Has errata begun adding one or two things to actually change rules rather than just clarify them even though way back when they said they weren't planning to do that? Yeah, but so what? All of this is exactly why a lot of my posts always talk about the "board game" of D&D, and why it's not worth it to treat that like it's the important part of the game rather than the story and narrative building roleplaying part. Because the "board game" has a lot of holes, has a lot of ambiguity, has a lot of misalignment between the game rules and the "narrative" the rules are meant to represent, has a lot of parts that might not be all that fun to play, and most importantly turns some players into a-holes when they can't get things to work the way they want them to. There's a reason why both the 3E and 4E "D&D miniatures" games got almost no traction in the marketplace. Because on their own-- without the roleplaying part layered on top-- D&D combat just isn't all that great compared to other boards games out there you could be playing instead. And thus spending all this time hounding Jeremy and consulting Sage Advice and bickering here on EN World in an effort to make the rules airtight is like putting lipstick on a pig in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification