D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[loverdrive]

Baloney. I have tactical combats all the time. If you don’t I suggest your not using enough of the rules, which I think is a proper gripe of 5e. There isn’t enough exposition on HOW to use the rules to get that tactical play.

The first hint is that it’s not all in the monster stat block. Lots of 4e folks seem to make this mistake.

However if you say it isn’t AS tactical or doesn’t go into as much tactical detail as you’d like and 4e dose, yea. I dig that.

Again. You created a tactical combat, not 5E rules. I have tactical combat with synergies, short-term feedback loops and naughty word too, but the wrong Crowford and his buddies don't deserve any credit for it.

If you need to put an effort to do X using a system Y, it means that system Y doesn't do X.

 

[darjr]

This, or they will create a 200 page binder with bogus houserules.

I want to see that binder.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Whether or not you consider 5E "tactical" or not probably comes down to whether you think having the "Shove" action be in a different section of the book rather than in character creation and not appear as a standard part of your character sheet unless you hand-write it in... takes the game out of the "tactical miniatures game" genre.

4E put movement powers directly into the standard attacks of most classes... 5E keeps them siphoned off and requires you to "remember" that you can do it. How you feel about that probably colors your opinion of how truly tactical either game is.

 

[Parmandur]

Baloney. I have tactical combats all the time. If you don’t I suggest your not using enough of the rules, which I think is a proper gripe of 5e. There isn’t enough exposition on HOW to use the rules to get that tactical play.

The first hint is that it’s not all in the monster stat block. Lots of 4e folks seem to make this mistake.

However if you say it isn’t AS tactical or doesn’t go into as much tactical detail as you’d like and 4e dose, yea. I dig that.

Whether or not you consider 5E "tactical" or not probably comes down to whether you think having the "Shove" action be in a different section of the book rather than in character creation and not appear as a standard part of your character sheet unless you hand-write it in... takes the game out of the "tactical miniatures game" genre.

4E put movement powers directly into the standard attacks of most classes... 5E keeps them siphoned off and requires you to "remember" that you can do it. How you feel about that probably colors your opinion of how truly tactical either game is.

Personally, if I want a tactical game, I'm booting up my Switch and playing Fire Emblem: Three Houses.

 

[Manbearcat]

Whether or not you consider 5E "tactical" or not probably comes down to whether you think having the "Shove" action be in a different section of the book rather than in character creation and not appear as a standard part of your character sheet unless you hand-write it in... takes the game out of the "tactical miniatures game" genre.

4E put movement powers directly into the standard attacks of most classes... 5E keeps them siphoned off and requires you to "remember" that you can do it. How you feel about that probably colors your opinion of how truly tactical either game is.

I’m not @loverdrive , but my guess is her litmus test is something like:

In order for something to be sufficiently tactically deep to call it “tactical”, the implications of the move-space/decision-points navigated needs to be layered with each layer having significant and diverse consequences and synergies to be leveraged or avoided.

So, it’s not good enough to have a discrete “Shove” action. Forced Movement needs to interact with and be integrated with other layers of system for it to be possessed of sufficient tactical depth to be considered “tactical.” Otherwise it’s bordering on mere color (even if its just north of that). For instance, If I do this Forced Movement move will it:

* Trigger a rider (condition or damage or narrow the move space and/or shut down a synergy for Team Monster) due to terrain interaction or new configuration of battlefield position.

* Will that condition/new configuration of the battlefield open up the movespace for Team PC or amplify their synergy?

* Will it chain a secondary effect/opening for the PC in question or open up a sequence of moves.

* Will it impose a Catch 22 on Team Monster…maybe force another member to spend action economy inefficiently or to make a move that damages the structurally integrity of Team Monster’s position (eg someone has to move and spend bad action economy to help the guy who was Force Moved, and that movement exposes the formerly well-protected protected Artillery/Leader/Controller).

* Does that move let Team PC be more efficient (eg, they can save Daily X for a subsequent conflict).


That kind of thing. I guess the modern saying is:

“There are levels to this.”

 

[darjr]

Again. You created a tactical combat, not 5E rules. I have tactical combat with synergies, short-term feedback loops and naughty word too, but the wrong Crowford and his buddies don't deserve any credit for it.

If you need to put an effort to do X using a system Y, it means that system Y doesn't do X.

No. I run a ton of 5e in public Adventurers League games. All by the book. They DO deserve credit for it. Despite your hang up with them. They even deserve credit for the rules that make it robust for on the fly ruling in combat like you have done, especially in “on grid” play. Which I’ve also done in home games.

And no, page 42 of 4e doesn’t really count, it was a brilliant idea but couldn’t keep up with the powers and often went flat and ended up being a waste of effort.

edit to add: again I do concede that 4e is an excellent tactical game. Far better than 5e, if that’s what your after. I need something “more” in the other areas of RPGs and am not willing to sacrifice them for the sake of that higher end tactical play.

 

[Kurotowa]

Again. You created a tactical combat, not 5E rules. I have tactical combat with synergies, short-term feedback loops and naughty word too, but the wrong Crowford and his buddies don't deserve any credit for it.

If you need to put an effort to do X using a system Y, it means that system Y doesn't do X.

Counter take: If you need to put in effort to get a system to do X, it means X is not a default setting for the system. Enabling optional game components takes a little work precisely because they're less deeply integrated into the system. And the fact that detailed tactical combat isn't the default setting for 5e is absolutely a feature, not a bug.

Lots of people don't enjoy complex tactical combat. Many of them are very bad at it. That's what sunk my group's one attempted 4e campaign. Like, the two wargamers were fine, but the rest of the group was overwhelmed and combats took forever and they weren't having any fun. You only have to look at the sales figures to see that the 4e design model is a very niche one. If you can get a whole group who are comfortable in that niche then they'll have an amazing time, but you're cutting out a lot of potential players if that's the only playstyle you offer.

What 5e offers is a more simple and streamlined play experience, and if your group wants detailed tactical combat you can start enabling optional features. It's easier to do that than it is to take a 4e style system and try to disable the tactical combat features until you achieve the streamlined easy access version. And it's indisputable which approach has a larger potential audience.

 

[darjr]

Oh, btw, I do edit my posts a lot. Sorry, for what it’s worth I’m not trying to “game” forums, just trying to clarify.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

True story, a few months back I was literally on my way to a local used bookstore to look for some 4e books to maybe give the system a try, and I listened to this YouTube video on the way there—


—and noped out again a few blocks away from the bookstore.

Holy shirtballs, that was a savage take-down of 4th Ed
Never did much with that version. My DM did a good job at focusing on the noncombat. But six months into the campaign a couple players moved away and it ended
I enjoyed it, but it's hard to disagree with much of that

Does sound like one complaint seems to be tied to his playing Essentials rather than base 4th Ed

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

My guess is the 4e resurgence is multivariate:

1) No present scorched earth campaign by edition warriors hell bent on a misinformation campaign and making the hobby an insufferable, miserable place at all costs.

2) 5e’s success brining interest from younger gamers who first tried 5e (and are therefore untouched by prior zeitgeist and cultural conflict).

3) The success of indie games like Dungeon World but particularly Blades in the Dark (which can teach people to successfully run Skill Challenges because the tech and GMing principles and player Best Practices are similar).

4) (Actual) Online Tools…the kind they were hoping for 4e at release.

Are the tools still online?
Or are there unofficial versions?