Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll be really blunt here: I see no sign explaining further will get me any further with you and I don't owe you anything. If you think I'm threadcrapping, feel free to report me. Far as I can tell from your phrasing you just want to "win".

And the same to you, on every point. I accept your concession.

Mod Note:

Both of you are being problematic. @Thomas Shey has been here long enough to know we’d prefer that, if you’re going to disengage, disengage without parting shots.

@Joanna Geist , snark like that is more likely to inspire negativity than deescalate. That makes moderators’ tasks more difficult. Please don’t.

 

[Golden age Superhero]

Alright, straighten up or I am going to turn this thread around and go home!

 

[aramis erak]

Looking at what I've been running the last year or so...
I like metacurrencies, unified resolution mechanics, variety of special abilities, but most of those being simple...
The list includes 2d20 system (Dune, STA, Fallout), Classic Traveller (one shot), Daggerheart (2-shot), Savage Worlds, Dragonbane, The Fantasy Trip.

Daggerheart and Dragonbane are the lightest of the two.

 

[Theory of Games]

Running: Mutants & Masterminds 3e, The Arcanum 2e and gearing up for Shadowrun 4e

Playing: 5.5 (what a slug of a game system)

5.5 reminds me of buying potato chips where half the bag is empty off the shelf. There's just nothing there:

• skills and feats have been literally abandoned
• the Fighter's combat options are boredom personified
• the class options look like 1e
• bounded accuracy/proficiency is lame

It's just weird seeing a company strip the complexity from a system. I mean I get why the new people like 5e/5.5 but if you've gotten comfortable with the older editions ...

 

[payn]

Running: Mutants & Masterminds 3e, The Arcanum 2e and gearing up for Shadowrun 4e

Playing: 5.5 (what a slug of a game system)

5.5 reminds me of buying potato chips where half the bag is empty off the shelf. There's just nothing there:

• skills and feats have been literally abandoned
• the Fighter's combat options are boredom personified
• the class options look like 1e
• bounded accuracy/proficiency is lame

It's just weird seeing a company strip the complexity from a system. I mean I get why the new people like 5e/5.5 but if you've gotten comfortable with the older editions ...

Pretty easy to understand they gave up on you for a legion of new players. While I to prefer the complexity of yesteryear edition, BA is one of the best D&D design decisions.

 

[aramis erak]

• bounded accuracy/proficiency is lame

BA was the best addition of 5.0, IMO. And a natural outgrowth of the tags on modifers in 3.0... can't keep two modifiers of the same tag.

I know that next I run WEG d6 system, I'm going to cap kept dice at 6d... simply because then the moderate 15 is still a relatively risky difficulty, and the label fits (VE is 5, E is 10, M 15, H 20, VH 25), and reduce Legendary from 50 to 30... It also speeds up counting time for experienced PCs.

 

[Theory of Games]

BA is a crutch for mathematically-challenged groups who can't navigate big numbers. That was the complaint coming from so many people, right? "The bonuses and modifiers are too complicated! It's a barrier to entry!" So they lowered bonuses (BA), dropped circumstantial modifiers (Adv/DisAdv) and nerfed the monsters (lowered AC, less attacks per round, lowered spell resistance, et al).

The result is this much more "math-friendly" game that plays more like PbtA than trad D&D. Has it been financial successful? Sure, although not nearly as successful as Hasbro expected - any guesses why?

 

[soviet]

BA is a crutch for mathematically-challenged groups who can't navigate big numbers. That was the complaint coming from so many people, right? "The bonuses and modifiers are too complicated! It's a barrier to entry!" So they lowered bonuses (BA), dropped circumstantial modifiers (Adv/DisAdv) and nerfed the monsters (lowered AC, less attacks per round, lowered spell resistance, et al).

The result is this much more "math-friendly" game that plays more like PbtA than trad D&D. Has it been financial successful? Sure, although not nearly as successful as Hasbro expected - any guesses why?

Uh, what?

I'm no big fan of 5e but 'plays more like PbtA than trad D&D' tells me a) you aren't familiar with PbtA and b) your idea of trad D&D starts with 3e.

 

[Theory of Games]

Uh, what?

I'm no big fan of 5e but 'plays more like PbtA than trad D&D' tells me a) you aren't familiar with PbtA and b) your idea of trad D&D starts with 3e.

I mean that 5e is much more rules-lite than 3.5/PF. But then many ttrpgs are rules-lite compared to those editions. My main point is 5e/5.5 lost the wide variety of character options that made D&D engaging. PbtA isn't different from D&D, it's just lighter.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, although not nearly as successful as Hasbro expected - any guesses why?

Citation needed. Do you have some document of their expectations the rest of us have not seen, or something? Or are you interpreting what you saw of corporate behavior to support that preferred narrative?

Because, as I recall, it has been pretty well agreed that 5e is associated with unprecedented and sustained growth in D&D, far greater than anyone expected.

What it may be didn't lead to was knock-on effects in terms of, say, movie ticket sales, or lifestyle merchandise sales. But that's not the fault of the system, as a system.