Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9108452" data-attributes="member: 59816">Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.I think the difference between myself and a number of posters on this thread is - It doesn't matter much to me if I have a problem in my game with something or not. If I see a lot of people having an issue with some part of the game or another, with some consensus (I'm not speaking of illogical complaints, playstyle differences, or aspects that change would actively make the game worse) then I tend to agree that the issue is something that should be looked at. &nbsp;C'mon, even WotC designers think that the 2014 DMG needs a big overhaul! They KNOW that it wasn't very good. It's not HORRIBLE, in that it has sold and functions basically fine. But again, I say: Should we be shooting for &quot;doesn't totally suck&quot;? Does the thing need to be unplayable garbage to count as an issue?Yeah, I mean... I love D&amp;D 5e. I play it multiple times a week. Just because it has a few things that aren't very good doesn't make it a bad game. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.Actually, no. It might be harder to sell it TO YOU, and to people that wanted more change out of it. But I've been selling D&amp;D for 30 years - I have a lot of experience with this. What they are doing with it (rules-wise) is absolutely the right thing to do (sales-wise).Agreed. Hmm... a few. Depends on what you think of as &quot;major&quot;. If it needs to be utterly terrible at the table to count as major then sure, nothing major.Oooh! I'm on the lookout for missed stuff!This probably falls under the &quot;matter of opinion&quot; category, as opposed to the &quot;true&quot; category, even by my much looser than [USER=5889]@Stalker0[/USER]'s chosen definition of &quot;true&quot; but I agree with you. Psionics ought to be worked out and printed. It's not - quite - a complete D&amp;D without it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FitzTheRuke, post: 9108452, member: 59816"] [I]Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.[/I] I think the difference between myself and a number of posters on this thread is - It doesn't matter much to me if [I]I[/I] have a problem in my game with something or not. If I see a lot of people having an issue with some part of the game or another, with some consensus (I'm not speaking of illogical complaints, playstyle differences, or aspects that change would actively make the game worse) then I tend to agree that the issue is something that should be looked at. [I] [/I] C'mon, even WotC designers think that the 2014 DMG needs a big overhaul! They KNOW that it wasn't very good. It's not HORRIBLE, in that it has sold and functions basically fine. But again, I say: Should we be shooting for "doesn't totally suck"? Does the thing need to be unplayable garbage to count as an issue? Yeah, I mean... I love D&D 5e. I play it multiple times a week. Just because it has a few things that aren't very good doesn't make it a bad game. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Actually, no. It might be harder to sell it TO YOU, and to people that wanted more change out of it. But I've been selling D&D for 30 years - I have a lot of experience with this. What they are doing with it (rules-wise) is absolutely the right thing to do (sales-wise). Agreed. Hmm... a few. Depends on what you think of as "major". If it needs to be utterly terrible at the table to count as major then sure, nothing major. Oooh! I'm on the lookout for missed stuff! This probably falls under the "matter of opinion" category, as opposed to the "true" category, even by my much looser than [USER=5889]@Stalker0[/USER]'s chosen definition of "true" but I agree with you. Psionics ought to be worked out and printed. It's not - quite - a complete D&D without it. [/QUOTE]

Verification