Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6796307" data-attributes="member: 37579">This got me thinking.I think the Oberoni Fallacy still applies to 5e. WotC is responsible for providing a (reasonably) balanced game, and one with as few flaws as possible. 4e showed that balance isn't everything and if balance is achieved at the cost of play style and flexibility then the game is still flawed, albeit in a different way.5e was based on the design of being a highly flexible retroclone. Being the best edition of D&amp;D and feeling a little like playing all prior versions of the game. As such, anything that really breaks away from the D&amp;D feel would be contrary to that design goal and a flaw. However, while the Oberoni Fallacy applies, the innate flexibility of the system - a game designed to be modular - means that less things can be considered a &quot;flaw&quot;. Loopholes are still a problem. Broken combinations or imbalance are a problem. Mechanical issues are a problem. Something like the current discussion on low magic are not a problem and do not fall under the purview of the Oberoni fallacy. Because they are not universally a problem and the game is designed to be modular and customizable. By being a modular ruleset, the game was designed to accommodate those changes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6796307, member: 37579"] This got me thinking. I think the Oberoni Fallacy still applies to 5e. WotC is responsible for providing a (reasonably) balanced game, and one with as few flaws as possible. 4e showed that balance isn't everything and if balance is achieved at the cost of play style and flexibility then the game is still flawed, albeit in a different way. 5e was based on the design of being a highly flexible retroclone. Being the best edition of D&D and feeling a little like playing all prior versions of the game. As such, anything that really breaks away from the D&D feel would be contrary to that design goal and a flaw. However, while the Oberoni Fallacy applies, the innate flexibility of the system - a game designed to be modular - means that less things can be considered a "flaw". Loopholes are still a problem. Broken combinations or imbalance are a problem. Mechanical issues are a problem. Something like the current discussion on low magic are not a problem and do not fall under the purview of the Oberoni fallacy. Because they are not universally a problem and the game is designed to be modular and customizable. By being a modular ruleset, the game was designed to accommodate those changes. [/QUOTE]

Verification