Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9439517" data-attributes="member: 55680">I think my way of playing D&D is the best way (I'm biased like that) but I sure as hell don't think it would avoid most problems as I know most people don't want to play things my way. 5e as a compromise option between my way of playing D&D and other styles worked decently enough despite being pretty far from my ideal D&D ruleset (which would be more one part 1e, one part 5e, one part modern Storygames).Also often stuff can read very differently than it plays. For example 4e classes read as very cookie cutter but sure as naughty word don't play that way, same with a lot of old school stuff. My beloved Cavern of Thracia module reads as a boring grind but is just sublime in actual play.Also a lot of people could be judging stuff (of all editions) due to memories of naughty word about and doing stupid naughty word as kids rather than people who know what the naughty word they're doing using a ruleset to its greatest potential. It took me a while to get over my prejudices against TSR-D&D that I got from my own DMing faceplants as a kid in the 90's.But Jack Vance rocks <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> Although having Vancian Magic for every class is a problem, I think it fits the flavor of the wizard class beautifully and carefully managing Vancian resources just fits what wizards are all about perfectly.Yeah as much as people roll their eyes about it now, bounded accuracy was such a breath of fresh air after the clunky jury-rigged scaling of 3.5e numbers.Agreed for the most part. As much as I love what TSR-D&D was trying to do the implementation is just too janky. My biggest issues with the OSR is that people tend to either:A. Focus waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on specific bits of the implementation of TSR-D&D rather than the goals that implementation was trying to work towards. I think a lot of OSR design is way to hung up on backwards compatibility.B. Go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard when it comes to minimalism. I loved the insane richness of the 1e DMG and would like to see a more sturdy and well-build system that took a lot of what Gygax was trying to do and make it sing by applying decades of RPG design experience.That said 5e has a lot of issues, but it has fairly good and solid bones.Never found 4e hard to DM if you play it the way it works best (story heavy with one or two big epic battles per long rest), but it can be a real slog to DM if you haven't figured out what the best way to DM it and try to...say...run Keep on the Shadowfell as-is. I have, however, found it harder than other editions for some players to learn how to play. I find about 20% of D&D players just bounce off of how the rules are presented and that's a problem if those 20% of people include your good friends who you really want to play with. Maybe this isn't a problem if you introduce newbies to 4e, but I've found that some people who've played other editions just have a real hard time adapting their knowledge of how D&D rules work to 4e.On the other hand some things like "I want to run a sandbox" just makes 4e keel over and die since 4e doesn't work if you don't know at what level the PCs will be encountering what, and that defeats the whole point of a sandbox.Yeah I like 5e more than you do, but saving throw scaling is the single biggest naughty word-up in 5e rules. Martial classes across the board should've been given various ways to say "naughty word saving throws, I'm a goddam hero." That has only been partially band-aided over in 5.5e with things like buffs to fighter saving throws.This whole line of reasoning is making me scratch my head a bit. Shouldn't the tactical choices that players make in combat matter? If those tactical choices matter shouldn't how long fights last (and how much damage the PCs take) vary wildly depending on how intelligent their tactical choices are?The amount that we disagree about what is a feature and what is a bug continues to astound me. I'm not trying to criticize you, I think a wide variety of DMing approaches is a great thing for D&D and I'm happy that we can both have fun in our own ways, it's just like I'm looking at my mirror universe DM when I read your posts. Do you have a goatee? Hell, maybe I'm the alternate dimension twin and need to regrow the goatee I had before COVID masks made it too itchy.Yeah, I always knew that a lot of people DMed very differently from how I did but the sheer EXTENT to which my and other people's DMing styles are utterly alien to each other is really getting driven home in this thread.Yeah, I have utterly given up at convincing people that they should consider what I find fun about D&D and am just trying to get people to understand that I think that what I like about D&D is fun for me. That's about all I can hope for.Yeah, those kind of "wait a second..." moments can be pure gold in D&D. I just find that you have to telegraph a lot so that when it happens the players all go "Jesus naughty word, I'm an idiot for naughty word myself over like that" not "you're an naughty word Daztur." Or I just sit back and wait for the PCs to give me rope that I can use to hang them.</blockquote>

Verification