Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6052745" data-attributes="member: 6694112">I'm not sure I quite follow.For example, I feel that Vancian casting as explained in OD&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, and the Next Playtest is annoyingly complicated. Some people like it and they're welcome to it, but I don't like it.Now, you're suggesting that it's not just my personal taste, but the fault of four editions of copy editors? That if they just hired one decent set of copy editors over those decades, Vancian casting would be simple enough that I'd like it?Maybe that's true and maybe if it had ever been explained to me well over the last twenty years, including playing many wizards and using dozens as NPCs, it'd seem simpler. But I find that very unlikely.And stuff like temporary conditions in 4e are copy-edited fine. The text is very tight. The explanation being good doesn't make tracking them any easier at the table.I suggest that a poor explanation can make something more complex, but that there is a certain inherent complexity that you can't get rid of by throwing better editors at the problem.Just because someone is saying that they don't want a complicated game doesn't mean that they're attacking the editing team at WotC. Literally the only person here who's made that connection is you... and I'm honestly not sure why you did.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>