Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 7921989" data-attributes="member: 6748898">This can be said of everything really.Maybe something that sets me apart is that I am glad D&amp;D isn't just generic fantasy. I like the cohesive writing of the books.When people seek to 'refluff,' 'retheme,' or minimize the effects of things Crawford warns them against turning the game into a 'mush'.Take for example the idea of removing powers or stats or what have you from races. I've seen people suggest this as it would 'allow for more choices of races for character ideas' but the downside of doing this is that the races become more of a mush. They lose much of their identities.I've also seen people say that it is a failing of D&amp;D that it isn't supportive of all types of fantasy. People think it is designed to be a general fantasy game, probably because it is the most popular one.I think we're agreeing on a lot but showing differing taste.All I've been saying I think, is that it is not wrong to take a game and mold it into something else. I just think people shouldn't assume that's what everyone wants and is okay with doing that. If everyone sits down to play a game of 5e the baseline is what is in the book. Anything can be changed by a group. I don't buy into a 'fluff' and 'mechanics' delineation where the 'fluff' can be discarded and changed at will by any player of the group. All changes should be made with concern about what is being gained and what is being lost.I think people are more likely to think hard about a change to whether a character gets a +1 in this or that than they are about a change that shapes what it means to be a class. And that can be to the detriment of the game. The latter likely having more impact than the former.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="abirdcall, post: 7921989, member: 6748898"] This can be said of everything really. Maybe something that sets me apart is that I am glad D&D isn't just generic fantasy. I like the cohesive writing of the books. When people seek to 'refluff,' 'retheme,' or minimize the effects of things Crawford warns them against turning the game into a 'mush'. Take for example the idea of removing powers or stats or what have you from races. I've seen people suggest this as it would 'allow for more choices of races for character ideas' but the downside of doing this is that the races become more of a mush. They lose much of their identities. I've also seen people say that it is a failing of D&D that it isn't supportive of all types of fantasy. People think it is designed to be a general fantasy game, probably because it is the most popular one. I think we're agreeing on a lot but showing differing taste. All I've been saying I think, is that it is not wrong to take a game and mold it into something else. I just think people shouldn't assume that's what everyone wants and is okay with doing that. If everyone sits down to play a game of 5e the baseline is what is in the book. Anything can be changed by a group. I don't buy into a 'fluff' and 'mechanics' delineation where the 'fluff' can be discarded and changed at will by any player of the group. All changes should be made with concern about what is being gained and what is being lost. I think people are more likely to think hard about a change to whether a character gets a +1 in this or that than they are about a change that shapes what it means to be a class. And that can be to the detriment of the game. The latter likely having more impact than the former. [/QUOTE]

Verification