Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pour" data-source="post: 6241944" data-attributes="member: 59411">@ BluenoseIt's not even offending me so much as calling into question what other justifications the design team is making to create what they want to create. Where's the trust? A small part of me is wondering if they glanced at the surveys, shrugged, and kept working on what they were doing before. D&amp;D Next -should be- a familiar, but extremely flexible, rule set. It should make practically no setting or playgroup assumptions in the basic game. All of that style and assumption should have come through an equation something like: the basic rules (solid math we'd all use) + modular refinement (aedu vs vancian, skills/feats or add tactical combat, decision how balanced or unbalanced, etc)+ setting (dawn war vs great wheel, FR vs ... err the other FR's, equipment, magic items, etc, etc, etc). Sacred cows and unholy bovines alike should be features to be chosen and applied, or disregarded. House rules for the win, except a host of them would be provided for you, already jiggered to fit nicely so you didn't have to worry about math or power concerns. And you could use settings right out of the book, or as 5e examples you could then use as a guide to convert whatever you wanted. Could have even bit charts in the DMG along the lines of, &quot;This would be equipment or treasure for a sword n sorcery setting&quot;, or &quot;use X mods to create a low-survival game&quot;, or &quot;this would be about the damage a spell of this level would do&quot;. But I think we're getting something far more concrete, and that will establish its own camp. I guess I have to pose the question, &quot;Was D&amp;D ever officially about flexibility and diversity of play, or did we, over the years, make it about that to fit us?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pour, post: 6241944, member: 59411"] @ Bluenose It's not even offending me so much as calling into question what other justifications the design team is making to create what they want to create. Where's the trust? A small part of me is wondering if they glanced at the surveys, shrugged, and kept working on what they were doing before. D&D Next -should be- a familiar, but extremely flexible, rule set. It should make practically no setting or playgroup assumptions in the basic game. All of that style and assumption should have come through an equation something like: the basic rules (solid math we'd all use) + modular refinement (aedu vs vancian, skills/feats or add tactical combat, decision how balanced or unbalanced, etc)+ setting (dawn war vs great wheel, FR vs ... err the other FR's, equipment, magic items, etc, etc, etc). Sacred cows and unholy bovines alike should be features to be chosen and applied, or disregarded. House rules for the win, except a host of them would be provided for you, already jiggered to fit nicely so you didn't have to worry about math or power concerns. And you could use settings right out of the book, or as 5e examples you could then use as a guide to convert whatever you wanted. Could have even bit charts in the DMG along the lines of, "This would be equipment or treasure for a sword n sorcery setting", or "use X mods to create a low-survival game", or "this would be about the damage a spell of this level would do". But I think we're getting something far more concrete, and that will establish its own camp. I guess I have to pose the question, "Was D&D ever officially about flexibility and diversity of play, or did we, over the years, make it about that to fit us?" [/QUOTE]

Verification