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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6859337" data-attributes="member: 996">A good hypothetical example.  A lot of discussions did fall into that structure. Someone likes one edition and hates another, but the reasons given are inherently self-contradictory.  Liking the 'simplicity' of one edition over the 'complexity' of another, when it is actually the preferred edition that is the more complicated one.  There is something going on with arguments like that, and it can very easily start to look like animosity or dishonesty, when it's more likely just a lack of reflection.To harp on the same example, a complicated thing that you're very familiar with seems simple enough to use, while a simpler, but unfamiliar thing can be more difficult, at first.  Yep.  And monsters started getting less generic names, too.  It generates copyrightable/trademarkable IP, even if it sounds a little silly at times.Meh.  D&D has always been a game.  'Necessary' is a matter of degree, depending upon how functional a game you want to produce.  Early D&D did go crazy piling limitations on things and trying to balance them.  You had hard weapon/armor restrictions, stat minimums, exp bonuses, differing exp charts, weighted treasure tables - all manner of baroque mechanisms in place.Two examples where the developers came right out and said they were cribbing from WotC's successful CCG developments, were: 1) rewards for system mastery in 3e, and 2) 'exception based design' in 4e.FWIW.</blockquote>

Verification