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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9163620" data-attributes="member: 6790260">But the bolded statement is that argument. You are, quite literally, saying that this path, and this path alone, are the reason why it is financially successful. The only way your claim works is if it is bidirectional: this design caused success (which is inarguable, 5e has clearly made money!), but also success could only come from this design (which is extremely arguable).The designers have already said that changes need to be made. They wouldn't put the money, time, and effort into making 5.5e, regardless of whatever names they want to use to dance around it, unless they felt changes were necessary.Further, as I argued multiple times above and in other threads, the changes are not severe. This mischaracterization--that there needs to be some horrific massive overhaul that would totally replace huge chunks of the game--is a big part of why these discussions always go round and round and round. Someone (sometimes me!) asks for improvements, and gets painted as having posted the ninety-five theses. I would, of course, prefer bigger changes rather than smaller ones, and anyone who's known me for any length of time on here knows this, but I have to be pragmatic. That's the only reason I have any interest in 5e at all (well, other than helping friends navigate its rules). Finding games of any interest to me that aren't 5e D&D is nigh-on impossible, so I must take what I can get. That is why I provided actual, concrete suggestions for what I would consider an absolute bare-minimum, "ragged edge of acceptability" type solution to the problem. It isn't a solution I'm happy with, but it's a solution I can tolerate, designed to conform to the requirements [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] described above (straightforward, easy-to-use, compatible with nigh-exclusive focus on GM fiat, well-connected to the Fighter concept as a gritty hero rather than "The Flash," etc.), albeit not exactly knowingly, since I did so before those requirements were posted.You may note that almost no one actually responded to those concrete examples. There's a reason I often don't bother--almost nobody is interested in that kind of conversation.Okay. The designers disagree with you. That's literally why we have "2024 5e." You don't put out a video from one of your lead designers explicitly saying that certain classes fall behind because people fail to take the expected numbers of rests, if there are no faults present in the design.Of course, this just loops back into the above, the either-or, black and white thinking problem. Either the game is absolutely perfect and making any changes at all would destroy its success utterly and irrevocably, or it is the dirt-worst most rotten garbage ever penned by man. It can't be a decent-ish product that mostly lucked into fantastical success by doing some things well and some things poorly. It has to either be the greatest thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since rancid mayonnaise--and the reason given is invariably "because a lot of people played it" (hence, popularity = quality) or "because it sold a lot" (hence, sales = quality.)</blockquote>

Verification