Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Visanideth" data-source="post: 6906412" data-attributes="member: 6705825">All the (3) things characters can do.For people who feel like gameplay is same-ish, 5E is pretty anemic in terms of player options too, honestly. &quot;All the things players can do&quot; is a very slim list, made of extremely situational options, and won't really satisfy someone who's looking for the kind of complexity 4E offered.Which is precisely what 5E is after: 5E WANTS to be a simplier game. You need to accept that you can't have both, you can't have the easy-to-run, not-about-numbers game and also want to have the nuanced, tactical gameplay. As someone's who's been DMing for almost 30 years, I've learned that statements like &quot;if your monsters are sameish, you're not doing enough with them&quot; are very suspicious and in practice they almost always end up with &quot;they can grapple too!&quot;. Written, codified and unique options are a meaningful addition to the game, both in terms of pure gameplay and immersion, and not having them can't be handwaved away as a minor detail or something you can make up for by having your monsters &quot;grapple and shove&quot; every now and then. This is a common flaw of arguments about RPGs, because people often say &quot;I like my favourite edition because it's easier and more elegant and it flows faster&quot;, and the moment someone says &quot;That's true, but I prefer my favourite edition because it's more tactical&quot; the first guy starts saying &quot;My favourite edition is more tactical too!&quot;.5E's monster design is, in my opinion, a weak point of the edition, but in large part it's consistent with what the game is trying to do, which is NOT having complicated and &quot;tactical&quot; combat events. Pretending you can use the 3 or 4 options available to players and get a tactically nuanced experience like you did in 4E and arguably 3E makes as much sense as those guys who claim that 4E is easier to prepare for than 5E. It's not. They're different games for a reason.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Visanideth, post: 6906412, member: 6705825"] All the (3) things characters can do. For people who feel like gameplay is same-ish, 5E is pretty anemic in terms of player options too, honestly. "All the things players can do" is a very slim list, made of extremely situational options, and won't really satisfy someone who's looking for the kind of complexity 4E offered. Which is precisely what 5E is after: 5E WANTS to be a simplier game. You need to accept that you can't have both, you can't have the easy-to-run, not-about-numbers game and also want to have the nuanced, tactical gameplay. As someone's who's been DMing for almost 30 years, I've learned that statements like "if your monsters are sameish, you're not doing enough with them" are very suspicious and in practice they almost always end up with "they can grapple too!". Written, codified and unique options are a meaningful addition to the game, both in terms of pure gameplay and immersion, and not having them can't be handwaved away as a minor detail or something you can make up for by having your monsters "grapple and shove" every now and then. This is a common flaw of arguments about RPGs, because people often say "I like my favourite edition because it's easier and more elegant and it flows faster", and the moment someone says "That's true, but I prefer my favourite edition because it's more tactical" the first guy starts saying "My favourite edition is more tactical too!". 5E's monster design is, in my opinion, a weak point of the edition, but in large part it's consistent with what the game is trying to do, which is NOT having complicated and "tactical" combat events. Pretending you can use the 3 or 4 options available to players and get a tactically nuanced experience like you did in 4E and arguably 3E makes as much sense as those guys who claim that 4E is easier to prepare for than 5E. It's not. They're different games for a reason. [/QUOTE]

Verification