D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?

[doctorbadwolf]

YMMV. Seriously.

I mean sure, but have you read stuff from Kobold Press, just as possibly the most popular example?

The balance is often outright terrible. I have the deep magic book, and…oof. Improved over the PDFs it draws from, sure, but still worse than the PHB to a noticeable degree.

Okay to be fair, the creativity is great in their stuff. But I have to rebalance their mechanics quite a lot. A majority of thier stuff is just on the weak side, which is at least easier to fix.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean sure, but have you read stuff from Kobold Press, just as possibly the most popular example?

The balance is often outright terrible. I have the deep magic book, and…oof. Improved over the PDFs it draws from, sure, but still worse than the PHB to a noticeable degree.

Mage Hand Press is remarkably balanced (too balanced, I would say in some ways). Level Up is a fantastic third party game. Miles ahead of WotC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For me I get the playstyle - but process oriented high sim appears to be an attempt to do what Immersive Sims like Deus Ex or Zelda: Breath of the Wild can do better than any human GM and have been able to since the mid 00s. I'd rather focus on responsiveness, interactivity, consequences, and shenanigans that computers can't do remotely so well.

This is the issue for me.

Process-based simulationist approaches have really seemed increasingly silly over my lifetime because:

A) Videogames do them ridiculously better than TT games, where with virtually every other aspect of RPGs, videogames eat dirt compared to TT games.

B) Most PB simulationism is based on a bunch of misguided and often quickly-outdated assumptions about how things work. This is often obvious in the armour rules they use (and PB simulationist games tend to love some really funky armour rules). So it tends to be unconvincing to me. Or there are giant weird holes in it, like it simulates swordfights in some plausible way, but then becomes demented nonsense when a 12' tall monster enters the frame.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mage Hand Press is remarkably balanced (too balanced, I would say in some ways). Level Up is a fantastic third party game. Miles ahead of WotC.

I’ve seen some good stuff from MHP, but I completely disagree on Level Up. It’s only “ahead” of wotc if your priority is a more complex game with more dials and knobs and a steeper learning curve.

I’d rather have the simpler game that my friends who don’t care about mechanics can enjoy just as much as me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is the issue for me.

Process-based simulationist approaches have really seemed increasingly silly over my lifetime because:

A) Videogames do them ridiculously better than TT games, where with virtually every other aspect of RPGs, videogames eat dirt compared to TT games.

B) Most PB simulationism is based on a bunch of misguided and often quickly-outdated assumptions about how things work. This is often obvious in the armour rules they use (and PB simulationist games tend to love some really funky armour rules). So it tends to be unconvincing to me. Or there are giant weird holes in it, like it simulates swordfights in some plausible way, but then becomes demented nonsense when a 12' tall monster enters the frame.

You're never going to be perfect, but you can do better than 5e certainly. There's definitely more sim in Level Up, for example. Enough for me to hang my hat on and further develop.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’ve seen some good stuff from MHP, but I completely disagree on Level Up. It’s only “ahead” of wotc if your priority is a more complex game with more dials and knobs and a steeper learning curve.

I’d rather have the simpler game that my friends who don’t care about mechanics can enjoy just as much as me.

You and I have very different gaming likes. I can't stand the increasing simplicity of the current game. Every time I see WotC make another change in the name of "ease of use", I cringe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You're never going to be perfect, but you can do better than 5e certainly. There's definitely more sim in Level Up, for example. Enough for me to hang my hat on and further develop.

Sure, but that is kind of missing the point I'm making.

I started off liking PB-sim games, but over the decades I saw that like, nothing of value, nothing lasting, came from PB-sims (whether Millennium's End, Rolemaster, or whatever) except farcical situations which were so funny we remembered them a lot later, and RPGs have plenty of those even without PB-sim stuff.

So why would one want to have "more" of that thing? It's like you're saying "Well this sandwich has more mayo in it it!" and I'm like "I didn't want more mayo... I've realized I don't like mayo...".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but that is kind of missing the point I'm making.

I started off liking PB-sim games, but over the decades I saw that like, nothing of value, nothing lasting, came from PB-sims (whether Millennium's End, Rolemaster, or whatever) except farcical situations which were so funny we remembered them a lot later, and RPGs have plenty of those even without PB-sim stuff.

So why would one want to have "more" of that thing? It's like you're saying "Well this sandwich has more mayo in it it!" and I'm like "I didn't want more mayo... I've realized I don't like mayo...".

Nothing wrong with not caring for PB Simulation. Many don't. I just got the impression that you didn't see your statement as opinion, but rather fact, and I take issue with that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You and I have very different gaming likes. I can't stand the increasing simplicity of the current game. Every time I see WotC make another change in the name of "ease of use", I cringe.

Do they use the term “ease of use”, or are you assuming a motive? I certainly can handle, and in some ways enjoy, complex and fiddly rules. But I also recognize that they tend to pull me out of the fiction, and as a result I have come to prefer rules that are simple and abstract, on top of which I can imagine the fiction. I prefer to think WotC has an audience like myself in mind, not that they are simply “catering to casuals”.

But don’t conflate “simple” with “shallow”. I like rules that force trade-offs and are hard to optimize. That is, Go not Tic Tac Toe. They just don’t need to be simulationist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do they use the term “ease of use”, or are you assuming a motive? I certainly can handle, and in some ways enjoy, complex and fiddly rules. But I also recognize that they tend to pull me out of the fiction, and as a result I have come to prefer rules that are simple and abstract, on top of which I can imagine the fiction. I prefer to think WotC has an audience like myself in mind, not that they are simply “catering to casuals”.

But don’t conflate “simple” with “shallow”. I like rules that force trade-offs and are hard to optimize. That is, Go not Tic Tac Toe. They just don’t need to be simulationist.

I'm not knocking your preference at all, but I think it is a coincidence that WotC is currently catering to it. They are catering to casuals, because that's their biggest market. It absolutely is shallow, as written. That it also allows you to play the way you prefer is awesome, but a side effect as far as WotC is concerned.