Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7785356" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.  If you were sitting at the table, waiting for your turn to roll around, it'd thus roll around faster if you were used to playing with a bunch of casters, or slower if you were used to playing with a bunch of fighters.  Then, your turn, itself, would have more depth & take longer if you were used to playing the mundane "I attack" class, while, if, conversely, you were used to playing a caster, it'd be over quicker and seem to have had less impact (unless you angled for synergies with other characters).I mean, to be fair, that was, well /fair/. Of course, it still wasn't exact parity.  While classes (and the implied sources) didn't follow their traditional extreme swings in table-time from Wizard (Arcane) down to Fighter (Martial), Roles /did/ play very differently.  Controller turns tended to be the most time-consuming & have the most depth.  While their turns might not be as complex, Leaders had to pay attention to the whole encounter, not just optimize on their turns but pay attention at all times, possibly step in with out-of-turn actions more than other roles.  Defenders were less complicated than Leaders & Controllers, but still had very meaningful tactical considerations with mechanical support.  Strikers were closest to the "I attack" option for players wanting the least depth to their play experience.Feats got a double-whammy of perverse game design incentives. You not only had all these chaff feats with highly situational bonuses or benefits that /might/ fit some build or some concept to sift through to find the handful that might actually be worth it for your character, you had these big fat OP 'must have' Feat Taxes, that were used, instead of errata - even though 4e got constant updates - to fix class deficiencies after the fact or 'fix' perceived "math issues" or whatever.  Essentials, in particular, introduced a plethora of feats that completely obviated existing ones, without having the simple courtesy of actually deprecating the things the rendered into chaff.  And, final injury added to the insult, while most of the choice-wrangling in post-E could be readily managed with the Character Builder (when you found a browser it worked with), Feats had to be unlocked with the right preqs before you could even see them, so you were right back to the 3e/PF full-career builds to actually get the most out of them.  Prettymuch everything else you could approach a level at a time."'D&D' Gamma World" was an awfully fun little game.  Not much Depth in the Morrus sense - you randomly determined your origins and that was about it, really - but very simple in return, and still had a lot going on.  The community about tripled the number of origins, too.  It was also much more an 'Encounter-based' game than 4e ever was, in spite of erroneously being called one.Hm... I've also run a lot of 5e, but played just the odd one-shot.  Maybe the experience has as much to do with it as the system?  But, the other good DMs I know aren't running 5e campaigns (and neither am I, ATM, when I did run 5e it was Encounters/AL and one-shot, low-level intro games), so it's Cons, AL or short adventures. ::shrug::  That seems to happen a lot in our hobby, if you're really enthused about a game, you're a lot more likely to be able to find a group willing to play it if you GM, than a group with a GM wanting to play it.</blockquote>

Verification