Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9453048" data-attributes="member: 87792">If you don't want mechanistic combat then you shouldn't be playing D&amp;D - a game that has it's roots in a hacked tabletop wargame and has dozens of pages of rules in the PHB alone for mechanistic combat. (The fireball spell? Pure rules for mechanistic combat. Hold Person? Almost pure mechanistic combat).D&amp;D (yes, including 5e) is a pretty rules heavy game where it is probable the majority of the rules are entirely around mechanistic combat - and the rules for doing anything else other than casting spells are little more than a rules-light game like Fudge or Risus and don't even begin to approach much lighter systems such as e.g. Fate Condensed, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark.And the idea that D&amp;D, with three core rulebooks of over 300 pages each, is a &quot;down to the DM&quot; game is laughable. 5e is more &quot;down to the DM&quot; than 3.X admittedly - but 3.x was trying to make the DM run a full blown physics SIM.Mechanistic combat is where D&amp;D 5e concentrates its rules, time, and effort in a game with a 900 odd page core (of which the overwhelming majority of the rules in the MM are about things to fight). If you don't want to play a game of mechanistic combat then you shouldn't touch any WotC edition of D&amp;D with a ten foot bargepole. (AD&amp;D 1e and B/X/BECMI/RC could at least legitimately claim to be about dungeon exploration - but that's been vestigial in mainline D&amp;D since 2e)The problem here is that in a game of mechanistic combat D&amp;D 5e simply hasn't bothered to put in the work to make the combat good and engaging - with balance being part of this. But the idea that just because it doesn't do it well doesn't mean that it doesn't devote most of its mechanical time to it is IMO laughable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9453048, member: 87792"] If you don't want mechanistic combat then you shouldn't be playing D&D - a game that has it's roots in a hacked tabletop wargame and has dozens of pages of rules in the PHB alone for mechanistic combat. (The fireball spell? Pure rules for mechanistic combat. Hold Person? Almost pure mechanistic combat). D&D (yes, including 5e) is a pretty rules heavy game where it is probable the majority of the rules are entirely around mechanistic combat - and the rules for doing anything else other than casting spells are little more than a rules-light game like Fudge or Risus and don't even begin to approach much lighter systems such as e.g. Fate Condensed, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark. And the idea that D&D, with three core rulebooks of over 300 pages each, is a "down to the DM" game is laughable. 5e is more "down to the DM" than 3.X admittedly - but 3.x was trying to make the DM run a full blown physics SIM. Mechanistic combat is where D&D 5e concentrates its rules, time, and effort in a game with a 900 odd page core (of which the overwhelming majority of the rules in the MM are about things to fight). If you don't want to play a game of mechanistic combat then you shouldn't touch any WotC edition of D&D with a ten foot bargepole. (AD&D 1e and B/X/BECMI/RC could at least legitimately claim to be about dungeon exploration - but that's been vestigial in mainline D&D since 2e) The problem here is that in a game of mechanistic combat D&D 5e simply hasn't bothered to put in the work to make the combat good and engaging - with balance being part of this. But the idea that just because it doesn't do it well doesn't mean that it doesn't devote most of its mechanical time to it is IMO laughable. [/QUOTE]

Verification