Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6308056" data-attributes="member: 18">I accept my wrongness there, then! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />My players have never just gone by what's on their sheets.3E beat into them that they shouldn't try anything clever, not because it wasn't on their sheets, but 3E's rules made them fail - this is because anything clever in 3E inevitably involved multiple checks - and with the high randomness of d20 rolls, it was very likely one of those checks would fail, ruining the whole action. Whereas Page 42 made it very clear that one shouldn't do that, one should make it one or two checks at most. So when they started trying clever <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, because they didn't know if they could or couldn't, this being a new edition, and found it worked, they kept doing it.I can see, I guess, how an even more beaten-down-by-3E group wouldn't even try - or if unlucky rolls made them fail the first few times - or worse, if their DM made up all sorts of strange rules about how Page 42-type stuff works, like Sadras' or his DM apparently did (see below).Yes and that is genuinely interesting, because I saw the precise same change going from 3E to 4E - if you think I am in any way lying or exaggerating here, feel free to go back and examine my posts on RPG.net on the d20 forum from the months after 4E was released - I mentioned this a bunch of times.Nor am I alone in saying the same about 4E - so you understand how this is not a change for me. Compared to 3E, though, I agree, 5E encourages making stuff up. Compared to 4E, I think it's a wash, but YMMV.As for my experience, well, my players really disliked a couple of things about 5E - the return of semi-Vancian casting, which two of them had never even experienced before, have started in 4E, and which they thought was really tremendously stupid - and the removal of tactical combat and roles, which they had liked. They liked the much faster combats, and, interestingly, that minions were gone (I like that too), but eventually the stuff they didn't like wound them up so much they stopped being willing to do 5E playtests - that was a long time before October, to be sure.Dude, you know what you had typed originally, it's still in my Inbox, from before you edited it! That's what offended me.I was also offended by how you appear to be suggesting (and I say appear, because I'm not sure you mean it), that there are only two states of knowledge about an RPG - "Playtested it in it's precise current incarnation" and "Wild Theorycrafting Based On Nothing". I've run and designed RPGs for decades. I know a lot about how games are likely to run. I do miss things, to be sure, and your and Dausuul's posts have been the ones which have pointed out the most stuff I've missed - I actually meant to ask you about the "hit and run" with the Rogue earlier - that's an interesting tactic, and not one that would have worked well in most editions (though hilariously the Rogue in my 4E game used it last session, I've never seen him do that before!). I am quite willing to listen to interesting accounts of stuff that happened, which I may not have expected - so long as you don't suggest I can't possibly understand unless I've played this precise exact playtest (especially as that goalpost is easy to move, and even if YOU don't move it, other people will - "Oh, you only played THREE sessions, you'll need to play five!" (then when I get to five, it's inevitably not enough...). I promise to avoid calling you "wrong" about experiences! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I will say one thing - 4E's math scared the hell out of some people - see Sadras' post which is full of untrue things about 4E's rules and what you "have" to do, but which seems propelled by a fear that he might somehow break the math (which is hilarious, as 4E math is hard to break), and for those people yeah, 5E's looser math is going to be less threatening. I think that's aesthetics, but aesthetics can matter.Further, something I note about 4E is that as more abilities accrete on the character sheets, people do try fancy stuff in combat less - it's still really common, but not as constant as it was. It'll be interesting to see, if, at higher levels, 5E has the same issue - I don't think it will, but it might.PF is as or more fiddly than 4E, so I honestly don't think it can have been the rules there.That's nice for you, but my experience is not uncommon. There was a big thread on it at RPG.net a long while back.Again, that's nice, but only if you need the house rules - I didn't really need any serious ones for 4E - this was a first for me in D&D-style RPGs (actually, I didn't need any in Earthdawn, either, I guess).That's not how 4E works, sorry. 4E works the way you claim 5E does. This is made explicit repeatedly in 4E, not least on page 42 of the DMG. The bolded bit is something your group made up. It is not in the rules. If you think it is, please cite the page.Again, nope. That's not 4E's actual rules, that's something your group made up. If you want to play that way, great, don't blame 4E's rules for it, that's just weird!No, dude, do you understand that I actually DM 4E, and thus you repeatedly making stuff up and saying "That's how 4E does it!", is just really obviously untrue. Again, cite the page or even the general rule, because this is not something that is in 4E, this is something that is in Sadras' group.So far your list consists solely of things that were not rules in 4E, so no, you can't claim any of that. Seriously - none of what you have claimed is "how 4E does it" is a fact or a rule or a real thing at all - you may think they are - but they are not, and you will not be able to cite them (OR WILL YOU? Dun dun DUUUUUUN!).</blockquote>

Verification