Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gorice" data-source="post: 8999185" data-attributes="member: 7032863">My apologies. I didn't intent that comment to be taken seriously, but I can see how it might have been a bad idea, given the risk of being lost in translation.For my part, I'd say that 5e (not D&amp;D as such, which is a different matter) isn't so much inflexible as inert. It exerts a strong gravitational pull toward 'nothing happens'. I'm working on a longer post to explicate this, but it will take time.5e is pretty obviously inflexible in some ways, though. The assumption of powerful heroes with plentiful magic undermines both naturalistic play and classic exploration. Long combats balanced around groups discourage splitting the party. Violence is the assumed start and end point for most conflicts, and this influences the way players address problems.On the splitting the party issue, it's worth comparing 5e to Blade Runner. In the latter, you have a finite number of shifts in a day, and there is an assumption that the clock is ticking. This means that every lead you follow has an opportunity cost, and there is a strong incentive to split the party so the PCs can cover more ground. Any given lead is also unlikely to lead to combat, so the players aren't treating every encounter as a tactical problem -- but the possibility is there, which keeps things tense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gorice, post: 8999185, member: 7032863"] My apologies. I didn't intent that comment to be taken seriously, but I can see how it might have been a bad idea, given the risk of being lost in translation. For my part, I'd say that 5e (not D&D as such, which is a different matter) isn't so much inflexible as inert. It exerts a strong gravitational pull toward 'nothing happens'. I'm working on a longer post to explicate this, but it will take time. 5e [I]is[/I] pretty obviously inflexible in some ways, though. The assumption of powerful heroes with plentiful magic undermines both naturalistic play and classic exploration. Long combats balanced around groups discourage splitting the party. Violence is the assumed start and end point for most conflicts, and this influences the way players address problems. On the splitting the party issue, it's worth comparing 5e to [I]Blade Runner[/I]. In the latter, you have a finite number of shifts in a day, and there is an assumption that the clock is ticking. This means that every lead you follow has an opportunity cost, and there is a strong incentive to split the party so the PCs can cover more ground. Any given lead is also unlikely to lead to combat, so the players aren't treating every encounter as a tactical problem -- but the [I]possibility [/I]is there, which keeps things tense. [/QUOTE]

Verification