Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8228310" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I know "such a broad range" is qualitative, but I feel like this is really up for debate.  To my mind, there are the 5 identifiable forms of D&D.1)  Classic Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawling as Skilled Play.2)  AD&D and ECMI/RC Objective-Setting-Centered Hexcrawl or Sandbox.3)  AD&D 2e/3.x GM as Storyteller, Metaplot/AP via Force + Spotlight Rotation + Setting Tourism + Exposition Dump.4)  AD&D and 3.x AP/Module as Skilled Play.5)  4e Story Now, Mythic-Troped Protagonist Play w/ Thematically/Tactically Deep Combat.My appraisal of 5e is that it certainly does 2-5 (unsurprising that my appraisal is this as it looked to me like AD&D 3e at end-stage playtest and release) well enough (particularly 3 and 4...which are likely the majority of the hobby by themselves), but 1 and 5 not at all.1 is not compatible because (a) PCs are FAR too powerful (particularly low level spellcasting/load-outs), (b) PCs have far too much resilience/stamina/ability to dictate the rest cycle, (c) there is no codified and integrated Exploration Turn + Wandering Monster Clock + Required Rest + Reaction Table + Morale (yes, there is a discrete Exploration Turn and NPC Reaction...but that isn't the same thing here), (d) xp model that supports/integrates with delving.5 is not compatible because the  (a) isn't player/table-facing, (b) invests the GM with far too much authority in story trajectory and action resolution (which hooks back into (a) ), (c) doesn't feature scene-based conflict resolution (and all that goes with it), (d) doesn't have a subjective DC framework, (e) isn't possessed of the mythical, thematic PC build tools (Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny) or Quest mechanics that focus on dramatic need, and (f) isn't remotely comparatively tactically deep (for a myriad of reasons including monster depth, PC depth, battlefield/terrain depth, action economy interactions, interaction depth)."Broad" can mean be looked at many ways.  Does it capture a "broad" number of tables?  Undoubtedly, as 2-5 are the significant bulk of play.What % of play styles does it capture?  60 %?  I'm not so sure (particularly when 2 of the styles fundamentally are incompatible with the system) that qualifies (at least for me personally).  I would say it does 3 and 4 perfect (which is really what the game was made for) and it does Hexcrawl/Sandbox well enough.</blockquote>

Verification