Search results

A poll. Choose 3. If one is not on there, comment and I will add it.

13th age us a bit different, being by a 4E lead. But I get your point. I did not play 4E for long. We just did not have fun with it. One day I would like to do so, but it seems a lost edition since so much of it was digital only.

I find it interesting that many of the post-5E games have embraced at least some of the 4Eisms that 5E abandoned. Both Daggerheart and Draw Steel embrace different parts of 4E, for example.

Ooh. That's fun.

I found FitD (via Scum and Villainy) to feel a little too much like a "writer's room" -- that is, when playing we (as a group) were actively working to interpret results and narrate things that would make the "coolest story" rather than "what my character would do" or some sort of verisimilitude...

I ended up giving them 12 HP and the "save to stay up when dropped to 0 hp" ability.

Let me restate: for a game to specifically provide for telling a story in play, it must have mechanics that enforce that playstyle. What do those games do to do that? What player choices or actions are curtailed or prohibited, if any?

So what do you give up? How, for example, do those games enforce a 3/5 act structure without limiting agency?

The robust travel mechanics of A5E, as a non-controversial example that leaps immediately to mind. Personally I would add domain management, mass battles and war, and "courtly intrigue aka social combat" to the list at the very least.

I don't believe this for a second. The ruleset has little or nothing to do with a "story" playstyle. Now, modules? Sure. They were often written in a "story" way -- but that's not rules.

Systems should be designed to accomplish their goals. I don't actually understand the reticence to engage with systems even if they might be a little different.

Right,like making choices bounded by the fiction and not arbitrary metagame rules meant to emulate a totally different medium.

How so? Class ability X happens at level Y.

I don't think that's a game specific thing. No one has to "author" a D&D story either.

It would seem that if you can do one. You can do all of them.

What's wrong with the tech that it can't handle new classes? Does that mean you can't create an Artificer on Beyond? Or is WotC just gatong 3pp classes?

This Does not square with this. I mean, you admitted the difference in Agency. THAT is the difference. A fighting fantasy book is more akin to.a CRPG.

There are people advocating for it in this very thread.

I don't think this can be overstated. If 4E had gotten just Paizo on board, the entire history of D&D over the last nearly 20 years would look different.

That presupposes that WotC picks the "good ones." Since we know things are coming to Beyond as part of their crowd funding, it is clear they aren't weighing quality. More to the point: something being "good" is not what gets it on the list. Some arcane process within WotC does that.