Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8598543" data-attributes="member: 86653">No. Almost the opposite. No game can handle all possible playstyles well. The absurd amount of variation in the game as played is a symptom of the game being designed to be all things to all players. It lacks focus. It should be more focused. But, that's antithetical to WotC's goals, re: market dominance and sales. They want D&amp;D to be all things to all gamers. So it's designed as such. Whenever anyone says D&amp;D, they mean &quot;D&amp;D as played by me and mine&quot; but there's a nearly infinite variety of differing circumstances, playstyles, preferences, etc...hence the nearly infinite amount of arguments about D&amp;D. I think 4E was an infinitely better designed game because it knew what it was striving for and focused on it. Quite well, too. If that was your thing. Trouble was, it only appealed to fans who wanted that exact experience, and so it floundered. In response, WotC designed 5E to be the &quot;do everything, but do it half-as-well&quot; edition. Pick an aspect of the game and ask someone who's been playing D&amp;D longer than just 5E. They'll almost all tell you that some other edition did X better than 5E, but 5E is second best at X. So it comes across like a Greatest B-Sides album. It's incredibly popular, which is good for sales. But, that popularity is at the expense of focus. It's not one game, it's a dozen games...each with thousands of variations...in a trenchcoat that seems to think simply having &quot;unified mechanics&quot; means it's a single game.Listening to and reading what the proper old-school gamers said about the early days of the hobby is illuminating. If forget who said it, but one player that had both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax as referees said something along the lines of &quot;I've never played D&amp;D. I've played Dave's Blackmoor and Gary's Greyhawk.&quot; But, since WotC is doing what it's doing, it falls on us to sort out the mess. Things like Colville's suggested rating system on the backs of modules. It's an admission that D&amp;D is trying to be all things to all gamers, but actual content literally cannot be all things to all gamers, so that content needs focus. It needs to declare what it's meant to do. &quot;This module is for strategic/tactical play with about this many players of about this level&quot; whereas &quot;this module is for roleplay-heavy groups with about this many players and about this level.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 8598543, member: 86653"] No. Almost the opposite. No game can handle all possible playstyles [I]well[/I]. The absurd amount of variation in the game as played is a symptom of the game being designed to be all things to all players. It lacks focus. It should be more focused. But, that's antithetical to WotC's goals, re: market dominance and sales. They want D&D to be all things to all gamers. So it's designed as such. Whenever anyone says D&D, they mean "D&D as played by me and mine" but there's a nearly infinite variety of differing circumstances, playstyles, preferences, etc...hence the nearly infinite amount of arguments about D&D. I think 4E was an infinitely better [I]designed[/I] game because it knew what it was striving for and focused on it. Quite well, too. If that was your thing. Trouble was, it only appealed to fans who wanted that exact experience, and so it floundered. In response, WotC designed 5E to be the "do everything, but do it half-as-well" edition. Pick an aspect of the game and ask someone who's been playing D&D longer than just 5E. They'll almost all tell you that some other edition did X better than 5E, but 5E is second best at X. So it comes across like a Greatest B-Sides album. It's incredibly popular, which is good for sales. But, that popularity is at the expense of focus. It's not one game, it's a dozen games...each with thousands of variations...in a trenchcoat that seems to think simply having "unified mechanics" means it's a single game. Listening to and reading what the proper old-school gamers said about the early days of the hobby is illuminating. If forget who said it, but one player that had both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax as referees said something along the lines of "I've never played D&D. I've played Dave's Blackmoor and Gary's Greyhawk." But, since WotC is doing what it's doing, it falls on us to sort out the mess. Things like Colville's suggested rating system on the backs of modules. It's an admission that D&D is trying to be all things to all gamers, but actual content literally cannot be all things to all gamers, so that content needs focus. It needs to declare what it's meant to do. "This module is for strategic/tactical play with about this many players of about this level" whereas "this module is for roleplay-heavy groups with about this many players and about this level." [/QUOTE]

Verification