Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8731808" data-attributes="member: 7023840">That's not what I'm saying. If you have read my posts (or gotten past the first 1500 words in any of a number of posts that I start) you know that I am not shy about expressing my opinion. I express my opinion about things- and what I WANT TO SEE IN 5e ALL THE TIME Here, let me remind you ....#GREYHAWKCONFIRMEDGood? Are we good on that?So, what am I actually saying? Allow me to repeat-So this is the specific context of people criticizing 5e. I always want people to get everything they want and desire (sometimes, as Mencken put it, they deserve to get it good and hard). But far too often, criticisms of 5e do not come with the understanding of the product qua product.For example, I used to agitate, a lot, for more low-magic, low-powered, high-lethality options. And while I think that it is fine for 3PP (or optional rules in the DMG), I am quite cognizant that this is never going to be a part of the mainstream 5e rules, because this isn't something that is broadly appealing. This is a game that is going to have a (fairly) low barrier to entry, and a lot of continuity with the past. And while it is great to express opinions regarding the things we want to see in the game, when we move on to critiquing the design decisions, we need to keep in mind that they are designing a product that is meant to be broadly popular, and, more importantly, is meant to be broadly popular with the youngest fans joining the game today. To the extent that we ignore that, our critiques do not take into account actual real-world practices, and is nothing more than, to use the analogy, my demanding that all new cars have a manual transmission option.Now, if you want to just express your opinion- feel free! If you are engaged in a serious critique of the design decisions, then you have to operate under the same constraints that they do- what is popular?</blockquote>

Verification