Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8732864" data-attributes="member: 7026617">To be entirely fair, since I've participated in the thread from time to time, I don't play D&amp;D; I play a D&amp;D-adjacent at the moment (PF2e), and played 4e in the past, ran 3.5e, and both played OD&amp;D and ran it back in the day, but its built around a number of structural things (classes and levels, level elevating hit points, and most of its approach to spellcasting) that are not my cuppa.&nbsp; Even the three D&amp;D-adjacents I have some liking for I like largely despite these things, not because of them, and for probably about two decades I was actively hostile to D&amp;D, before 3e taught me that it was at least possible for a D&amp;D structured game to potentially serve my needs even if it was built around a framework that I fundamentally wasn't fond of (in the end, I decided that 3e had too many problems that were, for the most part, disconnected from my generic issues with its structure for me, but that's neither here nor there).Which is why I have avoided commenting about anything regarding those for the most part because my comments on them would be manifestly unuseful.&nbsp; I've stuck to things I'd have just as much issue with in a game with entirely different bases such as Advantage/Disadvantage (and in fact I own at least one non class-and-level game that took that mechanic and I don't like it there either) or things that are pretty clearly failures to do what they intend to do (CR).I don't know if anyone else in this thread comes from that sort of position, but think its at least honest to admit that if someone wants to view my criticism as coming from an outsider who isn't overly fond of the general class of games, they're not wrong.&nbsp; I just think its possible to separate the things that seem like they'd be problems for me even if I liked the overall structure (and that, in fact, aren't necessitated by that structure--since I know of at least two games with CR equivalent that seems to do a better job, it doesn't have to be that way) from those that add up to &quot;I don't like a lot of what many people consider to make it D&amp;D at all&quot; and I'm not about to wave those around in&nbsp; a thread about the current incarnation of D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8732864, member: 7026617"] To be entirely fair, since I've participated in the thread from time to time, I [I]don't[/I] play D&D; I play a D&D-adjacent at the moment (PF2e), and played 4e in the past, ran 3.5e, and both played OD&D and ran it back in the day, but its built around a number of structural things (classes and levels, level elevating hit points, and most of its approach to spellcasting) that are not my cuppa. Even the three D&D-adjacents I have some liking for I like largely despite these things, not because of them, and for probably about two decades I was actively hostile to D&D, before 3e taught me that it was at least possible for a D&D structured game to potentially serve my needs even if it was built around a framework that I fundamentally wasn't fond of (in the end, I decided that 3e had too many problems that were, for the most part, disconnected from my generic issues with its structure for me, but that's neither here nor there). Which is why I have avoided commenting about anything regarding those for the most part because my comments on them would be manifestly unuseful. I've stuck to things I'd have just as much issue with in a game with entirely different bases such as Advantage/Disadvantage (and in fact I own at least one non class-and-level game that took that mechanic and I don't like it there either) or things that are pretty clearly failures to do what they intend to do (CR). I don't know if anyone else in this thread comes from that sort of position, but think its at least honest to admit that if someone wants to view my criticism as coming from an outsider who isn't overly fond of the general class of games, they're not wrong. I just think its possible to separate the things that seem like they'd be problems for me even if I liked the overall structure (and that, in fact, aren't necessitated by that structure--since I know of at least two games with CR equivalent that seems to do a better job, it doesn't have to be that way) from those that add up to "I don't like a lot of what many people consider to make it D&D at all" and I'm not about to wave those around in a thread about the current incarnation of D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification