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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9604432" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You already know what I'd want to play and/or run. (I suspect I'd actually prefer running 13A over 4e, but would be willing to do either.)That said, honestly, I think you're running into a conflict of your own preferences not actually gelling together.You want a game that is simple, but one that gives players "moving parts." That's extremely difficult to do, because every moving part directly increases complexity. Likewise, some of your examples of things to make monsters "scary" again make the game more complicated, and anything even REMOTELY like the 3e spell list, even with the broken spells removed, will be extremely complex. So you're stuck--any game that improves in one direction almost guaranteed gets worse in the other.You want a game that offers players a reasonable feeling of progression, but you also want to preserve everything about 5e except its "HP and damage bloat"...which is the only real way players progress. Again, stuck: having meaningful progression requires that things change, and usually that they increase in some sense, but you want it to stay simple and focused and not really growing at all.You recognize that there have been shifts both in terms of design-culture (that is, what people have chosen to value or disvalue) and in terms of design-function (that is, we've learned that some techniques are worse than others, e.g. descending AC is worse than ascending.) But you also want a number of things that have been, whether culturally or functionally, left behind...in part because you recognize that a lot of that stuff was deeply unpopular with players, and not just because it was harmful. Once again, stuck: you want the balance and the ease-of-use of the modern, but the swinginess and unpredictability etc. of the classic.So....yeah. It seems to me that within your own personal preferences, especially when paired with your recognition of necessary things your players will require even if they aren't your personal preference, there's several contradictions. You want simple complexity and static growth and classic modernity, and I'm not sure any game will ever actually deliver on even one of those antinomies, to say nothing of all of them.</blockquote>

Verification