Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 3257836" data-attributes="member: 20194">I view Core as the lowest common denominator.I know some people don't like that term, but it's the best way I can describe it.Core is what is common to the most number of players.  Everyone who uses non-core books also uses core books.That being said, I don't like it when the magazine always focuses on the lowest common denominator.I'm guessing it's an overcompensation (IMO) for the negative feedback to Polyhedron.If an adventure has non-core elements it isn't useless.  In my experience very few people run Dungeon as is with no modification.  In fact, the nature of D&D prevents you from running it 100% like it's spelled out in the module.  IME tables want to explore and test the boundaries of everything the DM presents to them; it's what separates the tabletop experience from other types of games.  I wish every adventure in Dungeon did not have to be "playable" for 100% of their audience from a rules perspective.  Even if 10-20% of one (out of three) adventures contained non-core references I don't think that's all that bad, do you?  There is still a lot of good stuff a core only player can mine.  I mean, look at the times of Polyhedron.  IMO the adventures and ideas weren't playable to the majority of D&D campaigns, which made at least a quarter of the magazine useless.I strongly dislike when the non-core player always has to adjust adventures if they want to play their way so that everything is being catered to the core player.  To be fair it should be more even, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification