Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9589326" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>No, indeed I don’t think it’s a rejection of anything. It’s just something that has shifted over time, and I would agree that it was an organic shift. But, since some players have a pretty strong preference for the former, it’s unsurprising that this shift would leave many such players unhappy. This same group of players have been unhappy with this shift, mostly since around the release of Tasha’s Cauldron, though some noticed it starting before that and some are only noticing now with the release of the revised core books. I think this framing of the shift as being a matter of embracing “ludification” in favor of reification more often than early 5e did (while acknowledging that D&amp;D has always had elements of both, and 5e has always tended more towards “ludification”) is a useful way to articulate the source of this frustration that many players have been feeling with later 5e.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9589326, member: 6779196"] No, indeed I don’t think it’s a rejection of anything. It’s just something that has shifted over time, and I would agree that it was an organic shift. But, since some players have a pretty strong preference for the former, it’s unsurprising that this shift would leave many such players unhappy. This same group of players have been unhappy with this shift, mostly since around the release of Tasha’s Cauldron, though some noticed it starting before that and some are only noticing now with the release of the revised core books. I think this framing of the shift as being a matter of embracing “ludification” in favor of reification more often than early 5e did (while acknowledging that D&D has always had elements of both, and 5e has always tended more towards “ludification”) is a useful way to articulate the source of this frustration that many players have been feeling with later 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification