The difference being a quick point of reference you can look at on the front or back cover of a book vs having to buy, then read most of the book, then gleaning the information on your own.Isn't the idea behind boxed text, introductions, and various other "normal" parts of a book to do exactly what he's suggesting with the color coding?
It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played. And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day. If they removed that terrible assumption, then a system like Matt is proposing could work. Otherwise it'll just cause fewer DMs to pick up the modules as they're not tailored to their group. As it stands, DMs who run modules buy more of them and tailor them to the group. Which is what WotC wants. More sales. This kind of system would cause fewer sales. A non-WotC company could use this and likely do well with it. Here's to hoping MCDM does so.Colville has spoken. What do you think?
It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played.
And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day. If they removed that terrible assumption, then a system like Matt is proposing could work.
Colville has spoken. What do you think?
It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played. And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day.