“It’s just a heap of rules and I’m good with rules. I feel the way about RPG systems that Kate McCartney feels about baking. Because I’m a gamer and I’m an accountant and I love rules and I love systems. End of the day, there is some really solid logic behind monster building. Or as good as it can be given how to came to pass, but I won’t get into that. Here’s the deal: D&D actually has a really good mathematical system behind its monsters. And even worse, customizing monsters is atrociously explained. The problem is that it is poorly explained. The encounter building math is complicated and confusing, sure. The problem is they are really bad at explaining the game. Except for some bizarre-a$% oddities like the fact that magic missile is not intended to be an attack and dispel magic only actually works on spells and not on any magical class ability. The designers of D&D are very good at creating a game. It just had to cram as many references to bygone eras and bygone campaigns as possible. Instead, it just had to tug at your nostalgia heartstrings. So the PHB didn’t really have to teach much. And people don’t see it because most people reading the books are already gamers. Every game has crap, but for the most part, I really do love the game.
On the one hand, I like the actual the game.
I have a love-hate relationship with Dungeons & Dragons, 5th Edition.
