Since day 1 of D&D, we have all ignored or changed things we didn’t like. Anyone who refuses to play the game because it has class X, or niche protection, or a basic option like the champion fighter, or doesn’t cater to char op, are all missing the point imo. The game is designed for all of us, not just you.
100% agree! Refusing to play a game just because the designers do or do not include some feature that has no impact on the feel of the game would be just petulant.
That doesn't seem like even 50% agreement.
Compare bolded bits.
Sacrosanct is talking about our long history of changing or *ignoring* /things we don't like/. He never mentions the long history of homebrewing-in things we might want. I don't see anything in /his/ post condemning a non-game-designer for declining a game that simply lacks the elements he's looking for, rather than building missing ones up from scratch - which is very understanding coming from an avid designer (who might be inclined to figure just anyone could whip up a class or school of magic or psionic sub-system in an idle afternoon).
And, he never qualifies that those things need only be changed or ignored if they "don't impact feel of the game" - /everything on his list impacts feel!/
Really, on further reflection, it seems like 100% disagreement.
To be fair, I can't register 100% agreement, myself. I admire the sentiment in general, but I think refusing to play a game you don't care for, regardless of reason is fine. …OK, so long as you're not doing so manipulatively. … OK, maybe refusing to the play the game over some detail isn't quite right if you're part of a group that's come together to play said game.
But you're /certainly/ free never to seek out a game that doesn't interest you!
Call it 85%.
Upthread you made a joking aside about laser guns in the game.
Not entirely joking: Laser guns are something that /obviously/ is science fiction, /obviously/ has no place in a fantasy game, and /obviously/ should be excluded from D&D at all costs, right?
Except: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.
If that person, who believes 1-3, speaks up...or had spoken up in 2014...and says, "Hey, I don't think guns should be an official option, not just because I don't want <laser> guns at my table but because it encourages a shift in a direction I think is bad for the game"
That person is 39 years too late (or 34 years in 2014).
are they spitefully trying to prevent other people from having fun?
Without telepathy, there's no certain knowledge of spite vs paranoia vs delusion vs depraved indifference vs naïve idealism vs aphasia vs any other explanation or excuse however implausible, but, yeah, they are /definitely/ trying to prevent others from even having a choice to take an opportunity that might be fun. And, preventing others from having fun, though their fun will in no way affect you, is a spiteful /position/ to take, whatever the hypothetical motivation or convoluted excuses offered that may absolve the person taking that position from being in any sense a bad or spiteful person.
Looking at what people said were their favorite bits from their favorite editions, and looking at how 5e was designed, and it suddenly becomes more clear just how good of a job they did. And I think the design team deserves credit for that. It’s a hard job, designing something as popular as DnD.
Are there areas that could be improved? Sure. Is there valid criticism? Yep. Lack of a warlord/artificer/mystic 5 years in is a justifiable one. They should soon release a campaign book for Planescape, feywild, and shadowfell.
I have to admit, though the initial lack of the Warlord rankled, it didn't stop me from running - and, indeed, actively promoting - the new edition.
The slow pace of release both makes sense to me from a business (marketing & IP-management) standpoint, and tickles my nostalgia buttons for the 1e era, but it /is/ leaving things in the pipeline that are in strong demand for an awfully long time.
But that doesn’t mean we should throw personal insults at them, and demand that our personal preferences (especially if they are in the minority) be catered to.
It's how any community treats its dissenters that says the most about it.
And Mearls deserves credit for checking his ego and allowing the game to go forward without things he personally wanted.
Broke this bit out, because I'm curious what those things might've been?