Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6099931" data-attributes="member: 27570">I'm participating just fine by setting parameters for the discussion. I've suggested a perfectly fine approach to the game that includes layering edition feel. The goal of DDN is not to reproduce existing mechanics, it's to capture the feel of playing in any particular edition. They are accomplishing this through optional modules. Since recapturing the feel of playing in early editions requires less modules, it only makes sense for the core game to contain less. That's all we're talking about here. I have no problem with encounter-based resources being a layered module that will slide over the core rules with ease. I have no desire to talk about that module since it won't be used by me and doesn't present any problems for me. I am fully aware of the D&D rule sets and mechanics that I enjoy and will continue to advocate for their use since they bring me the most joy at the table. I would expect nothing else from anyone. I have only written off mechanics that have proven to be "unfun" for me at the table, as I would expect everyone to do.Have you played CoC? Same as it always was. You seem to think I have issue with 4e. I have none. Stances are not encounter-based. Stances are at-will-based and I have no issue with them. It is only encounter-based resources for combat that I have issue with.  Consider opening your mind to the option of not having them. What would the game look like? How would you capture the feel of 4e without them? Clearly, based on your above statement it is possible, so why are you not willing to explore a conversation without them? What's so scary about 4e without encounter-based powers?</blockquote>

Verification