Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8447946" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I'd say it's perhaps more about the experience being clear. There's almost always some wiggle room to change things up a bit. Having more than one possible play experience shouldn't be a barrier if we can meaningfully distinguish experience A from B. 5e kind of does this....for example see discussion on play styles on page 34 of the DMG; the comparison between Hack &amp; Slash and Immersive Roleplaying. It's not the most significant comparison, and seems to ultimately suggest that somewhere between those two options is what most games will fall into. The intention of the design wasn't really what I was commenting on, but yes, I would agree that 5e certainly seems designed to please different parts of the fanbase, and we can take that to mean it was designed to deliver a breadth of experiences. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the breadth was significant, but I imagine that's just a matter of opinion. The important thing is that this lack of specificity combined with house rules and the many people who've been playing D&amp;D for decades who just install their own take on how things should function.....whether based on house rules or being ported from prior editions and so on....very often act as if they are playing vanilla, by the book 5e. And they often approach discussion with that mindset, which can lead to confusion. Again, if you look at the Hack and Slash and Immersive Roleplaying descriptions on page 34.....I think one of these is supported far more than the other by the rules as written. I think that's pretty clear and I imagine many folks would agree with me. Shouldn't we be able to compare these two approaches? Why do I think the rules support one more than the other? Why I think there may be other games that would suit the other style better?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8447946, member: 6785785"] I'd say it's perhaps more about the experience being clear. There's almost always some wiggle room to change things up a bit. Having more than one possible play experience shouldn't be a barrier if we can meaningfully distinguish experience A from B. 5e kind of does this....for example see discussion on play styles on page 34 of the DMG; the comparison between Hack & Slash and Immersive Roleplaying. It's not the most significant comparison, and seems to ultimately suggest that somewhere between those two options is what most games will fall into. The intention of the design wasn't really what I was commenting on, but yes, I would agree that 5e certainly seems designed to please different parts of the fanbase, and we can take that to mean it was designed to deliver a breadth of experiences. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the breadth was significant, but I imagine that's just a matter of opinion. The important thing is that this lack of specificity combined with house rules and the many people who've been playing D&D for decades who just install their own take on how things should function.....whether based on house rules or being ported from prior editions and so on....very often act as if they are playing vanilla, by the book 5e. And they often approach discussion with that mindset, which can lead to confusion. Again, if you look at the Hack and Slash and Immersive Roleplaying descriptions on page 34.....I think one of these is supported far more than the other by the rules as written. I think that's pretty clear and I imagine many folks would agree with me. Shouldn't we be able to compare these two approaches? Why do I think the rules support one more than the other? Why I think there may be other games that would suit the other style better? [/QUOTE]

Verification