Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8390694" data-attributes="member: 7032025">5e is a game as well, and of the same kind, and does not have (or need) a formalised structure for this. There are roleplaying games with even less formalised structures.My take is that in particular the social domains where most of the "visible" part of the roleplaying occurs, linked more or less to intrigue, etc. does not need a formalised structure of resolution.It's more debatable for technical tasks, building / repairing things, etc. when it's multi-parts, why not, but even then we have very rarely needed it.I would think that is should be for the players  to create their teamwork, and I've always had beginning players think more in terms of skills (which are more mundane) than spells, especially at low level when spells are rare.Especially in 4e, if I might add, where spells don't really exist and are expressed almost only in technical combat terms on a grid, which, by the way, was one of my major frustrations with 4e, there was almost no clever use of spells. And a bit of a problem for me, as I like intricate magics and rituals, and understanding how it works and can be disrupted, etc. So, in and of itself, use of skills is not a major objective to me, classes with extraordinary skills tend to use them anyway.I like dynamic activities as well, but still found that the skill challenges made it not so dynamic and just a bit too formal for me.There was a <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/questions-about-converting-skill-challenges-to-5e.682352/post-8386180" target="_blank">discussion about this recently that I contributed too</a>, and I tried porting skill challenges in 5e, it's just that it remained too formal for me.We played AD&D a lot at medium to high level, and while I agree that at low level it was more simple exchanges of sword blows, I have had fantastic running fights atop the back of dragons, or teleporting on flying carpets that then plummeted when attacked by 4 teleporting mariliths, etc. And I really missed that when we switched to 3e and its mandatory grids, and even more with 4e and its extremely rigid system that confines magic to it.This is why we Then we completely agree, thanks for this vision.And we agree even more here. My point is that I agree that 4e did strategic use of resources better than 5e, in particular because of the at will/encounter/daily uses of powers whereas in 5e it's always complicated (and generates tons of discussions) about short/long rest availability etc.And I agree that it makes it much easier in 4e for beginning DMs. On our side, we are very experienced, we have story based games in which we go for days and sessions without fights, and suddenly we have 3-4 small fights in a row, so we adapt things and the strategical value of reserves suddenly comes to the fore. Or we have one big fight, and it does not. It's not an objective in itself.So to each their own, I am not against 4e in itself, we had some real proponents of the system at our tables, but overall the much less formal setting of 5e corresponds better to our way of gaming. And I understand that it can be the complete opposite for other tables.</blockquote>

Verification