Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5769936" data-attributes="member: 3192">I believe they are going to use modularity to satisfy the concerns you bring up.  I think it is extraordinarily important that both 4E as is and 3.x play styles are catered to. That is the guts of the divide in the community. Old schoolers like me have a horse in the race, but we simply aren't as sizable (if not vocal) portion of the community. More importantly I believe they need to make a game that makes people stand up and say "I want to play that" and that means innovative thinking and a strong finger on the pulse of what makes all players today the same when it comes to a fun game. It must be a fun game first and foremost. It really must be enjoyable enough at start to attract the investment of old and new players alike. The rest of the issues like play style splits can be addressed with solid know how of what makes 3.x and 4.0 the games they are (and we're talking Mike & Monte here). Old school games are a different beast in my book, but I think they are plausible. It is a matter of rules in some ways, but it is DM and DM screen magic time. Catering to that can be done, but it will be more difficult. They are like writing a joke book. If you put the punchlines in the PHB, the players won't be in frothing anticipation when the joke arises. One route to cover all of these beyond rules support by game modularity may be by vastly expanding game styles in the DMG. 3.0 had event vs. site based adventures and episodic, continuing and plot weaving for campaigns. 4E had adventures and super adventures, single setting, nonlinear, and multiple quests. It's DMG 2 added significantly to these. A new game making an umbrella over numerous play styles is really going to need a large and most wisely an ongoing accounting of each. It will still need some grouping, but there is enough material in the community already, which the community can give in feedback, to build a strong base of what the game needs to be covering in DM guidebooks. While some may see the fracturing of the community in RPGs across the board as a divisive splitting I do believe it can be a community which seeks to include all members. Having our flagship game seek to do just that is positive whatever the outcome. The flip of the fracture argument and "How could they possibly cover everyone's concerns?" and "you can't please everyone" is that we as players have become highly knowledgeable about what we want from games. Some will not want modularity. I suggest modules be capable of stand alone play for that reason, if no other. For everyone else, this is a step forward even if it may take awhile for your specific concerns and desires to be addressed. I strongly suspect that no matter how much is published almost all of us will do a little more personalization beyond the printed work. That's great. Let's keep innovating. But let's also tell the designers what we want, so we have the chance (at least) to have a bigger and better game for all. Opting out early on only serves to hide one's desires from the exact group of people looking to satisfy them.I get my personal desires are mine (and probably too often stated), but I feel a well intentioned crew with talent and the resources to back them up can satisfy *most* of us, if we don't stop them by our own disenchantment first. I'd like 5E to be the best D&D yet. I plan on adding my own 2 cents for the potential that it may happen....but if we quit this, I don't care to guess what will happen to the community, not just the company. Hasbro may seem some monolithic overlord to some, but it also brings significant weight to bear for spotlighting this hobby. I don't see anyone else even remotely on their level. I'd rather work with them for what we want than abandon ship or ignore it all dispassionately.</blockquote>

Verification