Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7807857" data-attributes="member: 5142">I recall saying that a lot of them are not that some of them aren't. As to whether or not being personally wowed is beside the point, how about you tell me? You are the one who first put forth the proposition "They are in fact innovating mechanics." I said in response that I didn't find most of these mechanical innovations all that innovative. It seems like the technical innovations that these 5e compatible systems put forth is comparatively marginal: set pieces, window dressing, and accessories. (Which is an apt summary IMO of what you highlight below.) So let's be clear here, you are construing my earlier statement that "I have not seen all that much in the way of innovative mechanics come out of the 5e compatible lines. A lot of retreading of similar ideas with reskinned ideas and mechanics" as an absolute statement that there is nothing new such that this argument can be simply disproven by pointing out that any innovations at all technically occurred, but that's clearly a dishonest or at least a disingenuous reading. But I don't particularly find most of this stuff all that innovative, and we can go through the list and talk about it in further detail and even talk of the things I find more innovative, but that seems like a bit of a distraction. Is that a subjective sense? Sure. But trying to make this argument be about an objective sense where you somehow disprove my argumentation by demonstrating that innovation technically happened seems a bit inconsequential to me. It's on the same juvenile level as when kids play freeze games where they are required not to move. One kid stands still and the other kid pedantically points out that the first kid was technically moving their chest when breathing or when they blinked. I'm still seeing this as orthogonal to the issue - at least in the way that you are framing it - since a GM may prefer a tight game that only uses the official materials. Some GMs only prefer using the PHB only. Some permit everything, sky's the limit. I don't really think that this speaks to my concern about "5e material Borgifying the market." But you clearly want me to bite on this bait you have laid out, so why don't you spare us all the hassle and just pretend that you caught me in your clever ruse? At this point, I would prefer that you get to your point. Apparently I should angrily accuse of you of attacking Fate by saying that and defend Fate from your attack. However, mature and reasonable people should recognize that you aren't somehow attacking Fate, so there is no reason to get into a needless argument where I unnecessarily accuse you of attacking Fate.</blockquote>

Verification