Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 2981952" data-attributes="member: 10479">The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable.&nbsp; It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me.&nbsp; Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity.&nbsp; Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long.Untrue.&nbsp; Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted.&nbsp; The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification.The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . .One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact.&nbsp; It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it.Another approach keeps the complexity and finds a way to present it to a wider audience that makes the game more accessible without oversimplifying it.&nbsp; It finds way to ease play without genericizing the very elements that, IMO, help keep the game and the brand strong.Anyway, that is what I am seeing.&nbsp; Now, it may be that the actual WotC design philosophy is akin to my own and all of the hubbub is superfluous, but the peeks we are being given behind the scenes seem to suggest otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 2981952, member: 10479"] The meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted. Reaching the audience isn't really a problem, nor what I find disagreeable. It's what they intend to present to that audience upon reaching them that concerns me. Again, I agree making the game easier to play but I do not think that requires removing its complexity. Stripping every creature down to the lowest common denominators, leaving them with just enough to get it through a brief combat scenario, won't ultimately satisfy anyone, at least not for long. Untrue. Again, the meaning doesn't change when removed from the passage, it is merely highlighted. The second sentence is an addendum, not a clarification. The major difference between the design philosophy that appears to be on the horizon for WotC and the one I personally champion is fairly simple . . . One approach seemingly presupposes that if the complexity of the game is removed it will appeal to a much larger audience and those who want complexity can add to it after the fact. It apparently purports that the game as it is would be too difficult to explain to a wider audience than those currently enjoying it. Another approach keeps the complexity and finds a way to present it to a wider audience that makes the game more accessible without oversimplifying it. It finds way to ease play without genericizing the very elements that, IMO, help keep the game and the brand strong. Anyway, that is what I am seeing. Now, it may be that the actual WotC design philosophy is akin to my own and all of the hubbub is superfluous, but the peeks we are being given behind the scenes seem to suggest otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification