D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Thomas Shey]

I've not familiar with Dungeon World, and I have not played 13A, but IME 4e, though great, definitely need some fine tuning. I agree with @Lanefan that every system does. I don't think I would want to play one that didn't! Fixing / tweaking things to my taste is half the fun!

I think there's a difference between adjusting to taste and having things that need fixing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You know what he means though. Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

There's a big difference between that and them being the "same" though. There are a number of generic games and superhero games that have a basic framework used to build powers, and then you customize with modifiers. The final results have the same basic structure, but they're not the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a big difference between that and them being the "same" though. There are a number of generic games and superhero games that have a basic framework used to build powers, and then you customize with modifiers. The final results have the same basic structure, but they're not the same.

If it feels the same to you, that's all that matters. It felt the same to me, and to others.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its pretty rare for me to agree with Lanefan about much, but I think I mostly do on this one. But I'm not going to deny your statement--but I will note that they didn't need this for you. There are usually a very small number of things some people don't have an issue with in any game system that's been developed well at all, but that doesn't actually say all those aren't flaws.

There were absolutely things we felt a need to do to 4e when we ran it locally; not a huge number, but some. And I'll be surprised if I don't feel a need to when I get around to running 13A.

Do you have an example? I'm genuinely curious. I find Skill Challenges, the regular one- or few-roll uses of skills, and the existing rules for traps, combat, and terrain, plus Page 42's improvisation guides, to be sufficiently comprehensive that I genuinely don't really know what you would need.

I think there's a difference between adjusting to taste and having things that need fixing.

Yes. "Tweaking" or "adjusting to taste" is not, at all, the kind of thing that was originally described. The thing originally described was literally reviewing the entire system "from top to bottom" and changing lots of things. Not just a tweak here or a change in perspective there, but a literal "debugging" of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

The systems I favor do not need to be debugged, because they already have been debugged. It might be the case--as you yourself have just said--that there are simply things the metaphorical "software" was never programmed to handle in the first place. But "tweaks" and addressing something the rules are silent on is not the same as "debugging" a whole system "from top to bottom."

There's a big difference between that and them being the "same" though. There are a number of generic games and superhero games that have a basic framework used to build powers, and then you customize with modifiers. The final results have the same basic structure, but they're not the same.

Irrelevant! It is possible to say they are the same in some way, thus they are the same, through and through, no exceptions.

If it feels the same to you, that's all that matters. It felt the same to me, and to others.

And yet if some other thing feels unfair or unbalanced to us, that's not all that matters, is it? Why is that the case? Why are some subjective preferences held by a variable-sized minority valid no matter what, while others are invalid no matter what?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you have an example? I'm genuinely curious. I find Skill Challenges, the regular one- or few-roll uses of skills, and the existing rules for traps, combat, and terrain, plus Page 42's improvisation guides, to be sufficiently comprehensive that I genuinely don't really know what you would need.


Yes. "Tweaking" or "adjusting to taste" is not, at all, the kind of thing that was originally described. The thing originally described was literally reviewing the entire system "from top to bottom" and changing lots of things. Not just a tweak here or a change in perspective there, but a literal "debugging" of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

The systems I favor do not need to be debugged, because they already have been debugged. It might be the case--as you yourself have just said--that there are simply things the metaphorical "software" was never programmed to handle in the first place. But "tweaks" and addressing something the rules are silent on is not the same as "debugging" a whole system "from top to bottom."


Irrelevant! It is possible to say they are the same in some way, thus they are the same, through and through, no exceptions.


And yet if some other thing feels unfair or unbalanced to us, that's not all that matters, is it? Why is that the case? Why are some subjective preferences held by a variable-sized minority valid no matter what, while others are invalid no matter what?

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't hold your opinions. It something feels unfair or unbalanced to you, then it is. To you. Just like my feelings about 4e are real to me. We just don't agree.

It should also be noted that, insofar as published works are concerned, we can't both get what we want. So something has to give at the end of the day.

 

[dave2008]

I think there's a difference between adjusting to taste and having things that need fixing.

What "needs" fixing is, IME, often based on taste. In fact, everything we "fixed" in 4e and 5e was simply our taste. There was truly no need for us to fix either game.

 

[Hussar]

There’s one thing about it, the way people feel about a game sure seems awfully important. It’s almost like people have constricted things in their minds and then justify these constructs by building unassailable arguments about “well I just feel that way. Don’t bother me with things like facts or actual evidence. I feel this way and I insist that my feelings be respected.”

Does make it easy to not actually have to make anything like a real argument or actually any sort of compromise. Just plant your feeling flag on whatever hill suits your fancy.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just plant your feeling flag on whatever hill suits your fancy.

Done (although you can't see the rest of the hill, just the top).

 

[Hussar]

To me, it all comes down to priorities. My highest priority for D&DOne is ease of use at the table. Given the choice between fantastic ideas that are really cool and interesting and super immersive and something that I can use intuitively and not have to faff around with the rule books too often, well, ease of use wins hands down every time.

I have no problem making my game interesting. Making the game interesting is what a DM is supposed to do. That's your job. That's the biggest part of being a DM, or it should be - making sure that the game is interesting. I can handle that bit. Neat ideas, cool adventures, interesting scenarios? Yup, I can do that. Or, at the very least, I can steal ideas from people who are far more creative that I am and run those.

But remember fifteen different subsystems that all do the same thing at the end of the day? Nope, not interested. Give me one rule that works most of the time and I'll muddle through on the times that it doesn't.

The idea that in game uniqueness is created by mechanical distinction is something I rejected a long time ago.

It's actually really funny really. Most games don't bother. It doesn't matter what character you play in most games - everyone at the table uses the same mechanics 99% of the time. Whether it's a trad game like GURPS or some hippy dippy pass the story stick Indie game. But, for some bizarre reason, mostly because, I think, of tradition, there is a subset of D&D gamers who insist that every player at the table has to learn a whole set of new rules every time they change characters.

No thanks. Give me streamlined and simple and I'll handle the other stuff.

 

[Garthanos]

But remember fifteen different subsystems that all do the same thing at the end of the day? Nope, not interested.

That seems the definition of 5e