Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6883757" data-attributes="member: 996">There's often this tension presented between Role Playing and Playing a Game, as if their exclusive choice, but both are really necessary to have an RPG, at all, yes.  Systems support the 'game' side, but strong systems don't actually discourage the 'role' side, which comes more from the attitudes of the players & GM.For the above reasons, I can't agree.  Not that a system can't become clunky enough that re-calculating something in the middle of play can be distracting, just that throwing away the system isn't the only to avoid such distractions.  The thing is, all those additional options didn't just distract players from the game with their minutiae when handled at the wrong time, they also empowered players to create the character they wanted to play, and thus have more buy-in, investment, in the role/story side, as well.  IIRC, 3e had over 20 named modifiers, and several variations on loosing your DEX bonus (flat-footed, flanked, etc) or having circumstantial bonuses or miss chances.  Good luck pulling all those - you might as well try pulling the players' teeth!  4e at least brought it down to a few named modifiers, and Combat Advantage.  Replacing CA with Advantage would be simple enough - it was binary like Adv (you either had it or didn't, multiple sources of CA didn't stack), but there was no corresponding Combat Disadvantage mechanic...Powers all used a specific format and set of jargon, so modding some aspect of them is theoretically simple - you just change the jargon definition of a keyword and all powers using that keyword are adjusted in that way.  It's just that 4e was clear/gamey/functional enough that there wasn't a lot of impetus to modify it in the first place.  It worked, why try to 'fix' it (even if you have an issue with how it worked).That's where 5e's genius.  By inserting DM rulings into the core resolution system, the precedent is set, and players are de-sensitized to 'house rules' or 'changes' - the DM's always making rulings anyway, so when he makes a blanket ruling - a 'house rule' however much it changes things - that's just par for the course.  It's the way the classic game tended to be played because the classic game wasn't really designed from the ground up, but was more just exploring new ground, a trailblazer(npi).  5e is more evolved, but intentionally designed to evoke that quality.Don't get me wrong, I like how adv/dis simplifies things, and makes basic tactics and actions like help clearly and significantly useful at the typical difficulties.  But, it does also discourage improv, tactics and teamwork, since once you're suffering from either advantage or disadvantage (or both), further adv/dis means nothing.  That's more true of the 'codified' sub-systems.  You know that certain actions and abilities will have certain chances of certain effects, which encourages not just using them individually in a push-button fashion, but combining them in creative ways, or using them as a basis for something improvised.  When players don't know what a given 'less codified' action might bring, they're more likely to go off what they know the DM is like than what they think might be a good idea, and that can get into some very 'meta' stuff, in its own right.  Not that it's 'bad,' just that it's not the panacea it's made out to be, nor is having a good amount of 'codified' choices as bad as it's made out to be.In that sense, it's a continuation of Combat Advantage from 4e.  Which is fine as far as it goes.  Rolling an extra die isn't a new thing in 5e, either, 4e used the same mechanic for a whole range of things, mostly in the form of re-rolls, but the Avenger's OoE, for instance, worked exactly like the 5e Advantage that followed.  Where Advantage became interesting was with the addition of countervailing Disadvantage.  You have two simple/universal modifiers, and they cancel.  It does encourage whatever tactic or ability can get you advantage, which can be a colorful one-off thing on the player side.  But once Adv/Dis is in play, you're done - stacking one or the other does nothing.  So it's a bigger service to simplifying combat than to making it more colorful (which you can still do, but you could always do). It does.  I suppose it's more noticeable when returning to the hobby or having stuck with the classic game until now.  Going from AD&D to 3e to 4e to 5e the evolution leading to Adv/Dis is much clearer, and feels less dramatic.</blockquote>

Verification