Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6260462" data-attributes="member: 6696971">No I agree that the genesis and evolutions of the groups isn't particularly difficult to unpack.  What I find mostly hard to get my head around (and here I'm going to respond to   @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=2067" target="_blank">Kamikaze Midget</a> 's post as well), is how WotC designers successfully pitched the incredible scope of D&DNext (one D&D to unite all of these wildly different groups) with literally dozens of LF/QW-like issues gripping the greater D&D community by its collective throat.  That one issue is toxic...with multiple dug-in, mutually exclusive positions...and its barely scratching the surface of the divide.I don't have faith that this can work and I'm truly not a cynic.  I just don't see how its possible, given the deep diversity within the greater D&D community, to create enough coherent, seamless, non-reverberating "unplug, plug-in" modules with predictable (quantifiable) results and apply them to the 5e chassis to create multiple play experiences that don't just appease but actually delight the various subgroups.  It just seems cost and time prohibitive to attempt such an undertaking.It has always seemed deeply easier  (less time and cost prohibitive) to create multiple, exclusive games (where you aren't agonizing over dozens of 2nd and 3rd order, perhaps unquantifiable, feedbacks) and then support them via a DDI analogue, Dragon/Dungeon, and something like PF APs.I know what I personally have enjoyed over the years with various D&D and non-D&D systems and they are so deeply different (mechanically-wise, GM-principle-wise, genre-wise, long term committment-wise) that I can't imagine trying to bridge those gaps with one system.  I, personally, would never undertake such a task to build that game for myself...one person...of which I'm (thankfully!) intimately aware of every switchback and pratfall of tastes, interests and expectations (and most importantly, why those things are the way they are).  Now take that dynamic and multiply the population to be pleased by a kajillion, and distance yourself from your understanding of the ins and outs of said population by a very large degree...then add on the extra fun factor of tribalism and all that comes with that (such as irrationally and vindictively willing to sink the ship because you want non-tribesmen to suffer or to be excluded merely because they don't play or your team...or some perceived wrong or slight).  Yeah.  No thanks.And while I'm selling despondency, I'll take a moment to switch gears and agree with   @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=87792" target="_blank">Neonchameleon</a>  that any hope at all for 5e lies within the designers profound understanding and explicit canvassing of each and every moving part of the system.  If something is built on a particular founding, it needs to be conveyed clearly to the consumer; eg if Monks are supposed to suck because "that is what Monks do (!)", then it needs to be on the tin.  Then, of course, you have the problem of page bloat and/or a certain cross-section of people complaining that the rulebooks read like an engineering manual and castigating the edition for that (and refusing to play it)!  Ack!Best of luck guys (truly...I would love to eat lots of crow here)!</blockquote>

Verification