Pathfinder 1E Wizkids should take the Pathfinder 1.0 ruleset and publish their own RPG.

[Campbell]

I am not terribly concerned about these 5th Edition Powered games using 5th Edition as their base rather than some house system. I was not terribly concerned under the d20 boom either. I do not think these game would meaningfully play differently or use some other sort of set of play procedures if they were designed to use house systems.

I try maintain an indie spirit. You do you. I will be over here doing my own thing. Some popular things are good, but not like because they are popular. Some unpopular things are also good. Some unpopular things are bad, but not because they are unpopular. Let's talk about games: what they do well and what they do not do well.

What I do take some level of issue with are when some 5th Edition fans use its popularity to make people with different preferences feel as if they are irrelevant and their preferences do not matter. It might be the case that catering to their preferences would harm the game's popularity. Please say that with compassion instead. If they are not talking about popularity let's just like deal with the actual design and the kind of play it works for. There is also the issue which is a broader problem with discussion boards where some people seek to invalidate some people's experiences instead of hearing them out. This happens on all sides of every issue, but it is like not cool.

 

[Zardnaar]

McDonalds isn't that bad here, I tend to avoid the sodas and fries.

I've seen the ingredients being made at the farm and meat it's not any worse than anything similar.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I am not terribly concerned about these 5th Edition Powered games using 5th Edition as their base rather than some house system. I was not terribly concerned under the d20 boom either. I do not think these game would meaningfully play differently or use some other sort of set of play procedures if they were designed to use house systems.

I try maintain an indie spirit. You do you. I will be over here doing my own thing. Some popular things are good, but not like because they are popular. Some unpopular things are also good. Some unpopular things are bad, but not because they are unpopular. Let's talk about games: what they do well and what they do not do well.

What I do take some level of issue with are when some 5th Edition fans use its popularity to make people with different preferences feel as if they are irrelevant and their preferences do not matter. It might be the case that catering to their preferences would harm the game's popularity. Please say that with compassion instead. If they are not talking about popularity let's just like deal with the actual design and the kind of play it works for. There is also the issue which is a broader problem with discussion boards where some people seek to invalidate some people's experiences instead of hearing them out. This happens on all sides of every issue, but it is like not cool.

Yes. This cannot be understated.

Adding onto your point even while not a great fan of 5e I take some level of issue with those who call 5e fans mindlessly fanatical knights and seek to invalidate their opinions.

 

[Umbran]

Just because you think something looks like meta-gaming, that doesn't mean it actually is.

And, just because you say it isn't, doesn't mean that's true either.

Define "metagaming". Then we can talk.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Define "metagaming". Then we can talk.

We already agree on that definition. Our disagreement is on whether the rules of the game reflect information which is available to the characters.

Either the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, in which case it's possible to role-play the way we've been doing for decades; or they don't, in which case role-playing is impossible because we have no idea how their world actually works, and we have no idea what these characters should be thinking.

If role-playing is impossible, then the whole hobby is a lie, and these forums have no reason to exist. I reject the degenerate solution. Therefore, assuming a solution does exist, it must be that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world; in which case we're fine to play the game as always, as long as we don't explicitly try and meta-game. You know, the way FATE explicitly tells you to meta-game, but which D&D 5E explicitly condemns.

 

[Arilyn]

We already agree on that definition. Our disagreement is on whether the rules of the game reflect information which is available to the characters.

Either the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, in which case it's possible to role-play the way we've been doing for decades; or they don't, in which case role-playing is impossible because we have no idea how their world actually works, and we have no idea what these characters should be thinking.

If role-playing is impossible, then the whole hobby is a lie, and these forums have no reason to exist. I reject the degenerate solution. Therefore, assuming a solution does exist, it must be that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world; in which case we're fine to play the game as always, as long as we don't explicitly try and meta-game. You know, the way FATE explicitly tells you to meta-game, but which D&D 5E explicitly condemns.

There is no way that any D&D game mirrors any kind of sensible reality. Fate, even with its fate point economy, gives me a much more immersive experience, because it at least feels like I'm in an adventure story, that more closely resembles fiction.

HP are abstract to the point of video game logic, whereas in Fate a wound has consequences that feel realistic.

I know this is a useless argument to have with you, but honestly, there is no pure role playing technique that has been lost with more modern RPGs. I have cool characters in D&D, and I have cool characters in Fate. Preferences are personal, but to claim D&D solidly rejects meta gaming is amusing, as Umbran pointed out.

 

[Aldarc]

The fact that you can start the game as a "grizzled veteran of a thousand wars" doesn't mean the game is not designed to handle starting as "green recruit" and growing into "grizzled veteran" - this the game does well, but we have to note that the power curve in the game isn't particularly steep. As you go from green to veteran, your gains in outright power will be modest, but your overall change into a different person can be substantial.

I most definitely agree. What I would also note is how that experience contrasts with D&D, where there is a more clearly defined level-based power progression. So it may be more accurate to say that Fate is not necessarily interested in emulating zero-to-hero. It's interested in emulating narrative-based character progression.

It may be fair to say that Fate does not involve the skills he (or any particular person) finds fun to exercise.

Again, agreed.

This can be handled by saying, "Hey, folks, I'm going for a particular feel in this game, please don't spend fate points to Declare Story Details (that what this is called in the Fate SRD)." This will not break the system. The intent of the rule is largely shift the burden of creation off the GM - so when a player wants to ask, "Hey, is there a chandelier here, my plan really calls for me to swing from it, if there is one," the GM can just make them pay a bit for the convenience, and let it go. If you want to shift that burden back, just eliminate that one use of Fate points, and you are back in the traditional mode. In my experience, this is the least commonly used power of the Fate Point anyway. Nothing will melt if you don't use it at all.

Sure, but I would still say that even if one were to remove Declare Story Details, that Fate typically works with blank spaces rather than predefined environments. How many dungeon-like maps can you recall have been made for Fate games?

I should note, though, that the Fate mechanics you are using there you describe as "abstract" - they are always used in terms concrete to the situation in the game. In D&D and attack action is abstract - it is only a concrete thing when you actually put it in a context, like a slavering orc coming at you, and you add in what you attack with - "I attack the slavering orc with my sword," is concrete. Similarly, you don't create an abstract advantage. You drop your "Banana peel underfoot" that happens to be an advantage because the slavering orc needs to dodge it. The thing that happens in the session is concrete - it is only abstract when we discuss it sans context.

Again, I agree that my explanation was a bit too reductionist here.

Yeah. Go into the boss fight having filled up many stress boxes, having taken some Consequences, and used up all your Fate Points on small stuff, and then come back and tell me that.

Your stress is cleared after a scene, so unless the boss fight is in the same scene then it will probably be cleared. You will still have Consequences and a lack of Fate points. I still don't think that this resource game is of the same nature as the resource game that D&D often entails with HP and spell slots. The notion of a 15-minute adventuring day, for example, is virtually unheard of in Fate. Again, this was more about the points of conflict in Fate with the sort of things that Lanefan has expressed as desirable in their games.

You know, the way FATE explicitly tells you to meta-game, but which D&D 5E explicitly condemns.

Having been in this debate before in other contexts, I can tell you that it doesn't condemn metagaming in the 5E DMG. It provides suggestions for discouraging or curbing it should you choose to, but that is not equivalent to condemning it. Plus, I think that the language of curbing metagaming is an admission that it is unavoidable consequence of players being aware that they are playing a game.