Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6798777" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure, 4e was very easy to run, I've seen relative newbies run it with little effort or trouble.&nbsp; And, a DM is always free (whether the tone of the system overtly encourages it or not) to take on that 'load' or 'pressure' if he has something he wants to do with it.&nbsp; But, as in the RAW zietgiest of 3.5, the attitude of the players can also be a factor.&nbsp; 4e played well 'above board,' how it worked was obvious and consistent, so players were pretty likely to spot when you deviated from it.&nbsp; If you were confident enough and had their trust, you could still do it with no issues, but it was a hurdle.&nbsp; 5e constantly calls on the DM to make rulings for playability, so when you make a ruling for an 'ulterior' reason, it's easy to slip it by.Maybe I shouldn't be bursting this particular bubble, since it's a nice bubble to be in, but D&amp;D - RPGs in general - have rarely been simple or minimalist in any meaningful sense.&nbsp; Whether you're comparing RPGs in general to other sorts of games, or D&amp;D to other RPGs, or different eds of D&amp;D to eachother, they all come out pretty complex or complicated, one way or another.&nbsp; But, 5e has done such a great job of feeling like classic D&amp;D that it's very familiar to us, and familiar can feel simple/natural/right in a way that even a much simpler or more intuitive - but entirely unfamiliar - thing simply cannot (until you've become familiar enough with it, anyway).&nbsp; Spells are predefined effects, and every class design uses them in some way.&nbsp; Attacks are all one predefined effect, too (that does damage on a hit, more damage on a crit, and nothing on a miss).&nbsp; Sure, you can use your imagination and visualize or re-skin that stuff all you want, whether you're re-skinning one attack mechanic or myriad spell mechanics.Yep, you can say that instead of saying, &quot;I move up to the nearest monster and attack ::roll d20::&nbsp; did I hit?&nbsp; ::roll d8:: 12 damage,&quot; but, in the end, you still did 12 damage.&nbsp; If that was a declared action, rather than a description after the fact, then the DM might let you make some sort of check, probably STR (or two, maybe DEX for bouncing off the altar), to land on the monster's chest.&nbsp; The DC might be 12 of 35, or you might not get a check at all, because you're getting into that whole &quot;DM may I?&quot; paradigm in trying to make something of your character's one mechanical option.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6798777, member: 996"] Sure, 4e was very easy to run, I've seen relative newbies run it with little effort or trouble. And, a DM is always free (whether the tone of the system overtly encourages it or not) to take on that 'load' or 'pressure' if he has something he wants to do with it. But, as in the RAW zietgiest of 3.5, the attitude of the players can also be a factor. 4e played well 'above board,' how it worked was obvious and consistent, so players were pretty likely to spot when you deviated from it. If you were confident enough and had their trust, you could still do it with no issues, but it was a hurdle. 5e constantly calls on the DM to make rulings for playability, so when you make a ruling for an 'ulterior' reason, it's easy to slip it by.Maybe I shouldn't be bursting this particular bubble, since it's a nice bubble to be in, but D&D - RPGs in general - have rarely been simple or minimalist in any meaningful sense. Whether you're comparing RPGs in general to other sorts of games, or D&D to other RPGs, or different eds of D&D to eachother, they all come out pretty complex or complicated, one way or another. But, 5e has done such a great job of feeling like classic D&D that it's very familiar to us, and familiar can feel simple/natural/right in a way that even a much simpler or more intuitive - but entirely unfamiliar - thing simply cannot (until you've become familiar enough with it, anyway). Spells are predefined effects, and every class design uses them in some way. Attacks are all one predefined effect, too (that does damage on a hit, more damage on a crit, and nothing on a miss). Sure, you can use your imagination and visualize or re-skin that stuff all you want, whether you're re-skinning one attack mechanic or myriad spell mechanics. Yep, you can say that instead of saying, "I move up to the nearest monster and attack ::roll d20:: did I hit? ::roll d8:: 12 damage," but, in the end, you still did 12 damage. If that was a declared action, rather than a description after the fact, then the DM might let you make some sort of check, probably STR (or two, maybe DEX for bouncing off the altar), to land on the monster's chest. The DC might be 12 of 35, or you might not get a check at all, because you're getting into that whole "DM may I?" paradigm in trying to make something of your character's one mechanical option. [/QUOTE]

Verification