Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9770440" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Of course it does.I mentioned the Palladium system earlier in the thread. I don’t feel a whole lot of intentional design went into its many components. I feel like Kevin Siembada kind of riffed on things with D&D in mind, and how certain things could be done differently than D&D, and that was about it. I don’t expect there was a lot of consideration about the best ways to do things or how the different subsystems would fit together and interact. It certainly seems like he just thought some mechanics up and then slapped them all together. Another example I would mention is actually D&D. I’ll mention two editions, for different reasons. First, I’ll mention 1e AD&D for some of its subsystems and how dependent they are on wargaming rules. Some of them just make no real sense. Like, the saving throw categories… they’re random as hell. However… where 1e did have intentionality was in the overall experience. That had a pretty specific expectation (exploring an adventure site) and many of the rules were designed to deliver that experience. This is something that 5e lacks. Many of the components from 1e are present, but they don’t fit together in any meaningful way. The pressures that the mechanics created are no longer present. The decision points are very different. So much is lost. I think this is largely because if there was an intention for 5e’s design, it was to appeal to as many fans of the various editions as possible rather than on delivering an intended experience in play. I’ll add the caveat that it’s possible the 2024 revision has addressed some of this… I haven’t really checked it out that much.</blockquote>

Verification