Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kilmax" data-source="post: 5779135" data-attributes="member: 55454">I completely agree with the OP. By the comments I've read this week, I'd&nbsp; say most people are, IMHO, misinterpreting the intention behind the&nbsp; new iteration. It seems that &quot;a modular game&quot; is usually being seen as &quot;the stuff I don't like won't be&nbsp; core&quot;; and &quot;appealing to players of all editions&quot; is seen by some as&nbsp; &quot;appealing to me only&quot;.Honestly, if WotC decide to make a game for everyone, there's&nbsp; definitely going to be something in the book that won't please you. But I&nbsp; think their goal is to make this kind of stuff optional -- optional in&nbsp; the sense that the game won't need it to function just perfectly, not in&nbsp; a flamist &quot;put it in the back of the book, together with the stuff I&nbsp; don't like&quot; way. And I believe this is will be the norm for everything&nbsp; in the new system: customization. From the use of skills and feats to&nbsp; the rarity of magic items, the presence or absence of a healer character&nbsp; in the party and combat options. Therefore, each group will actually&nbsp; have to pick which sub-systems will be used at the table (maybe with a&nbsp; checklist similar to the Unearthed Arcana one in 3e) even with some&nbsp; groups actively choosing not to use any of them.So, in this way, what would be considered core? Nothing, because&nbsp; everything will be part of the game. The rules won't be presented as&nbsp; &quot;core&quot; and &quot;optional&quot;, with the &quot;true&quot; elements of D&amp;D first, and&nbsp; all the other stuff afterwards. I can't see how in the Seven Hells WotC&nbsp; will make rules elements loved by many fans, such as some races and&nbsp; classes or feats, appear as mere &quot;optional&quot; material in the back of the&nbsp; book or in supplements. I think they've learned that lesson from 4e too.&nbsp; These add-ons will most likely be presented as &quot;modules&quot; or &quot;rulesets&quot;&nbsp; at the appropriate place in the book, to be used at one's own&nbsp; preference; not as some leftovers they made and didn't know what to do,&nbsp; but since it's ready let's put it on the book anyway.(An alternative to this could happen if the publishing format for D&amp;D&nbsp; Next is radically changed from what has been done on the last 10 years or so, consisting instead of smaller books with self-contained sub-systems. I&nbsp; think it would be a mess, but maybe they could make it work.)I sincerely believe some people are acting like this out of sheer passion for the game, not realising they're actually hurting it. But others are just ready to hate the next D&amp;D anyway, independently of the resulting product. So, we'll just have to bear with them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kilmax, post: 5779135, member: 55454"] I completely agree with the OP. By the comments I've read this week, I'd say most people are, IMHO, misinterpreting the intention behind the new iteration. It seems that "a modular game" is usually being seen as "the stuff I don't like won't be core"; and "appealing to players of all editions" is seen by some as "appealing to me only". Honestly, if WotC decide to make a game for everyone, there's definitely going to be something in the book that won't please you. But I think their goal is to make this kind of stuff optional -- optional in the sense that the game won't need it to function just perfectly, not in a flamist "put it in the back of the book, together with the stuff I don't like" way. And I believe this is will be the norm for everything in the new system: customization. From the use of skills and feats to the rarity of magic items, the presence or absence of a healer character in the party and combat options. Therefore, each group will actually have to pick which sub-systems will be used at the table (maybe with a checklist similar to the Unearthed Arcana one in 3e) even with some groups actively choosing not to use any of them. So, in this way, what would be considered core? Nothing, because everything will be part of the game. The rules won't be presented as "core" and "optional", with the "true" elements of D&D first, and all the other stuff afterwards. I can't see how in the Seven Hells WotC will make rules elements loved by many fans, such as some races and classes or feats, appear as mere "optional" material in the back of the book or in supplements. I think they've learned that lesson from 4e too. These add-ons will most likely be presented as "modules" or "rulesets" at the appropriate place in the book, to be used at one's own preference; not as some leftovers they made and didn't know what to do, but since it's ready let's put it on the book anyway. (An alternative to this could happen if the publishing format for D&D Next is radically changed from what has been done on the last 10 years or so, consisting instead of smaller books with self-contained sub-systems. I think it would be a mess, but maybe they could make it work.) I sincerely believe some people are acting like this out of sheer passion for the game, not realising they're actually hurting it. But others are just ready to hate the next D&D anyway, independently of the resulting product. So, we'll just have to bear with them. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification