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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6099190" data-attributes="member: 6696971">We've slowly been seeing a goalpost moving, reframing of design intentions as the effort has worn on.  Concurrently, we've seen people either (i) act like it isn't happening, (ii) act like people responding to the signals are either misinterpreting things or are being reactionary.  We are now seeing people who are pleased with or unaffected by the new, reframed design intentions saying "they're ok with that" with no accompanying acknowledgement that people weren't misinterpreting signals or acting reactionary.  Typically, when an extremely controversial (seeming) reframe has occurred, a damage control Legends and Lore or Rule of Three (and sometimes a quick forum post) has immediately swooped in to clarify the reframe.  My guess is, on this one, we are not going to see that; which will be a telling signal.  Yet still I suspect that it either (i) won't be happening or (ii) it will be a misinterpretation or reactionary.  I hate marketing shenanigans.  I wish they would just get on with it and make a solid Moldvay Basic game with a Standard and Advanced game for a large user base that supports Deep Immersionist/Exploratory/Sandbox, Gamist/Process Sim agenda (AD&D + 3.x) and stop trying to pretend that it is feasible to get all D&D players under one big tent (rules system).  I've been involved in too many projects like this (perhaps none this difficult) whereby the vision of the project manager was clearly beyond the scope of his (any) means and everyone working on the project knew it all along and brick by brick it became only more clear (except to him).  But he sold it and now has to wear it.</blockquote>

Verification