Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8607647" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Good point. Note that I'm absolutely fine with that, and that this is the kind of thing that you get in more simulationist systems like Runequest, which I absolutely love. It's just that they are built on extremely different paradigms, combat is (more &quot;realistically&quot;) extremely fast and deadly, and usually avoided by all parties unless extremely one-sided or there is no alternative, which allows roleplaying sessions to be structure very differently with, inherently, much fewer combats. D&amp;D is built with more combat in mind, but it was my frustration with 3e and 4e, combat was really slow, which meant that it was harder to balance the pillars, with our groups preferring &quot;exploration&quot; and even more &quot;social&quot; than pure combat.5e streamlined the combat system for us and is the perfect solution for extremely fast combat, in particular because of no declarations (which then need to be revised when the turn actully occurs), the immovable sequence (no delays) and very few interrupts (few applicable reactions), so that each player has no excuse to dither about what he is going to do. When it's his turn, he just explains what he intends his character to do, it's resolved, end of turn, next please... <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree that it's a question of mind set and trust, what you are saying is somewhat true, but it's limited by the fact that the roll has determined success or failure, and the player cannot change that. After that, the fun in that system is really about each player having the imagination and vocabulary to make fun descriptions of what happens, and this is where that kind of system fails more than the problem you outline, it does not support more passive gamers who are there mostly to play the game and let the DM describe things for them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8607647, member: 7032025"] Good point. Note that I'm absolutely fine with that, and that this is the kind of thing that you get in more simulationist systems like Runequest, which I absolutely love. It's just that they are built on extremely different paradigms, combat is (more "realistically") extremely fast and deadly, and usually avoided by all parties unless extremely one-sided or there is no alternative, which allows roleplaying sessions to be structure very differently with, inherently, much fewer combats. D&D is built with more combat in mind, but it was my frustration with 3e and 4e, combat was really slow, which meant that it was harder to balance the pillars, with our groups preferring "exploration" and even more "social" than pure combat. 5e streamlined the combat system for us and is the perfect solution for extremely fast combat, in particular because of no declarations (which then need to be revised when the turn actully occurs), the immovable sequence (no delays) and very few interrupts (few applicable reactions), so that each player has no excuse to dither about what he is going to do. When it's his turn, he just explains what he intends his character to do, it's resolved, end of turn, next please... :) I agree that it's a question of mind set and trust, what you are saying is somewhat true, but it's limited by the fact that the roll [U]has[/U] determined success or failure, and the player cannot change that. After that, the fun in that system is really about each player having the imagination and vocabulary to make fun descriptions of what happens, and this is where that kind of system fails more than the problem you outline, it does not support more passive gamers who are there mostly to play the game and let the DM describe things for them. [/QUOTE]

Verification