Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7726458">I find that a difficult pill to swallow that the author, being who he is, has never come across this subject before.Well, I always find it a bit silly to try talking about preferences and opinions.&nbsp; We can both say &quot;Yeah I like this, or yeah I like that.&quot; and never really get anywhere, regardless of if we see or don't see each other's POV.&nbsp; BUT!&nbsp; We can talk about game design, maybe not what we prefer but what exist.&nbsp; We can talk about if D&amp;D has gotten softer or not because we have a starting point, and an ending point for comparison.&nbsp; It's one of the reasons I can react rather strongly to heavily opinion-based editorials, of which Lew has no end of.&nbsp; I do the same in some situations.&nbsp; If the fight is important to the campaign or relevant to the current endeavors.&nbsp; If it is against a foe the party has been tracking but has significantly out-powered for whatever reason.&nbsp; But the point is no longer to provide a challenge, it's to tie up plot points, so I wouldn't really include such things in a discussion on if that's a sport or a war type fight, it just is.&nbsp; Defeat the boss, find the McGuffin, reach the goalpost, whatever.&nbsp; This is &quot;something else&quot;.&nbsp; I'll definitely agree there.&nbsp; Even through 3E had a greater diversity, it became unwieldy a lot faster.&nbsp; The &quot;sweet spot&quot; in 3X was a fairly narrow range between 3rd and 9th level.&nbsp; The &quot;sweet spot&quot; in 5E is MUCH wider, arguably 3rd through 12th, and it's why most of the official campaigns end between 15th and 17th level.&nbsp; That's the area where the game starts to break down.&nbsp; So, there's that, at least they learned something from 4E.&nbsp; I can't say that system ever broke down, though it did grow to pretty absurd levels.I hope so, that was certainly a design goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7726458"] I find that a difficult pill to swallow that the author, being who he is, has never come across this subject before. Well, I always find it a bit silly to try talking about [I]preferences[/I] and [I]opinions[/I]. We can both say "Yeah I like this, or yeah I like that." and never really get anywhere, regardless of if we see or don't see each other's POV. BUT! We can talk about game design, maybe not what we [I]prefer[/I] but what [B]exist[/B]. We can talk about if D&D has gotten softer or not because we have a starting point, and an ending point for comparison. It's one of the reasons I can react rather strongly to heavily opinion-based editorials, of which Lew has no end of. I do the same in some situations. If the fight is important to the campaign or relevant to the current endeavors. If it is against a foe the party has been tracking but has significantly out-powered for whatever reason. But the point is no longer to provide a challenge, it's to tie up plot points, so I wouldn't really include such things in a discussion on if that's a sport or a war type fight, it just [I]is[/I]. Defeat the boss, find the McGuffin, reach the goalpost, whatever. This is "something else". I'll definitely agree there. Even through 3E had a greater diversity, it became unwieldy a lot faster. The "sweet spot" in 3X was a fairly narrow range between 3rd and 9th level. The "sweet spot" in 5E is MUCH wider, arguably 3rd through 12th, and it's why most of the official campaigns end between 15th and 17th level. That's the area where the game starts to break down. So, there's that, at least they learned [I]something[/I] from 4E. I can't say that system [I]ever[/I] broke down, though it did grow to pretty absurd levels. I hope so, that was certainly a design goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification