Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9534262" data-attributes="member: 7037866">I am referring to game design and what happens when DMs escalate monsters and encounters because (by the rules) PCs are so powerful. Then the next iteration comes out with more powerful PCs (power creep), and DMs once again have to escalate creature power to match, and so on.Compare classes from AD&amp;D with the WotC counterparts. There are simply more &quot;stuff&quot; power and feature-wise for PCs to do. Instead of just playing your character, you are playing more a set of features.Unless a table is fine with playing a &quot;simpler way&quot;, the players will revolt against a DM who tells them, &quot;Oh, subclasses? No, I am not using subclasses this time around.&quot;Most new players, after experiencing 5E (with all the toys and knobs) who try AD&amp;D, for example, or B/X, will find it novel 9 out of 10 times, but not what to play it long-term IME. They are interested in trying the roots of the hobby, but find it less interesting because of the lack of toys and knobs. Yet for decades people played earlier editions and had a blast doing so, despite the lack of toys and knbos.We laughed at the idea of 5E being a &quot;simple game to learn&quot;. It is far from it IMO for most new players. And the fact classes are front-loaded with features coupled with how quickly you advance through levels 1-3 only makes it worse IME. Sure, I can change things, but I'm talking about how the game is written, not optional play styles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9534262, member: 7037866"] I am referring to game design and what happens when DMs escalate monsters and encounters because (by the rules) PCs are so powerful. Then the next iteration comes out with more powerful PCs (power creep), and DMs [I]once again[/I] have to escalate creature power to match, and so on. Compare classes from AD&D with the WotC counterparts. There are simply more "stuff" power and feature-wise for PCs to do. Instead of just playing your character, you are playing more a set of features. Unless a table is fine with playing a "simpler way", the players will revolt against a DM who tells them, "Oh, subclasses? No, I am not using subclasses this time around." Most new players, after experiencing 5E (with all the toys and knobs) who try AD&D, for example, or B/X, will find it novel 9 out of 10 times, but not what to play it long-term IME. They are interested in trying the roots of the hobby, but find it less interesting because of the lack of toys and knobs. Yet for decades people played earlier editions and had a blast doing so, despite the lack of toys and knbos. We laughed at the idea of 5E being a "simple game to learn". It is far from it IMO for most new players. And the fact classes are front-loaded with features coupled with how quickly you advance through levels 1-3 only makes it worse IME. Sure, I can change things, but I'm talking about how the game is [I]written[/I], not optional play styles. [/QUOTE]

Verification