Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7165700" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod. The edition war must been have driven by something more than the mere suspicion of late-adopters, habitual negativity of critics, and reflexive defensiveness of apologists that has been par for the course with every rev-roll, as there was an element of spite to it that became very uncompromising and disrespectful, even arguably destructive.Contrasted with the edition war, 5e's suffering of the same slings & arrows of outrageous fans as every other edition looks like a golden age of peace and goodwill.  <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   Oh, that 'apologist' impulse is here, still.  It's practically a constant - I've been accused of engaging in it, myself.  'Playing it right' in 5e is just "you're the DM, you see a problem, you fix it!"  It may not always be all that helpful an answer to every problem for every DM, but for those DMs who have the innate talent or have spent the time honing our art, it /works/, and gives you the results you want - can give you /exactly/ the result you want.  It's not really any less true for any past edition, either, the DM has always had that prerogative, whether the game acknowledges it, ignores it, or depends upon it. In 5e it means modding & authoring rules, or tossing out rules almost entirely & running on rulings (a mode I find liberating), in 4e it meant re-skinning (ditto, oddly), in 3e it meant swimming against the current of the RAW zietgiest (as exhausting as the mixed metaphor sounds).  In the TSR era, it meant (interesting coincidence) modding & authoring rules - we called 'em "variants" back in the day. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The rationalizations for the edition war are many and often as intellectually dishonest as the depths of the war, itself, could be.  They do not diminish nor excuse the extremes it was taken to.   Nod. And just walk away from them without animosity, like the OP is doing.  Really, almost any RPG other than D&D, you don't like it, nobody notices or cares, and you probably wouldn't think to point it out.  Heck for a non-D&D RPG a negative rant isn't even such a bad thing, at least it's name exposure!  Obscurity, not slander, is the biggest enemy of most other games.OTOH, 5e isn't 'certain games,' it's a very ambitious version of the first/most-popular RPG, with a goal (among others!) of being 'for' fans of all those past editions.  So, when a new player doesn't care for it, or gamer who's never much liked D&D isn't won over by it, that's too bad, but when a fan of one past edition - or worse, a fan of several past editions, is dissapointed by it and can't get the play experience their looking for from it, that's a failure.  And, when such a fan finds an issue with 5e, finding a solution - since the point of DM Empowerment is that you're, well, Empowered to implement solutions - is far more helpful than telling them the game's just not for them.  Because it is for them, every bit as much as it is for you or me. The parallels between 5e and 13A are really kinda remarkable.  Both do give the DM a lot of freedom, just in different areas.  Both had very similar goals, but achieved them differently and with different degrees of success.  For instance, 5e evokes the classic game even more than 13A's 'love letter,' while 13A handles TotM better than 5e, even though it's less adamant about it being the 'default.'</blockquote>

Verification