D&D 5E I broke it! Bring on the next system!

[I'm A Banana]

I am in a 4th ed campaign where there are very big differences around the table with regards to a willingness of players to push the system and create powerful PCs. Some have very powerful PCs (in and out of combat) and some less so. They key thing is the system has allowed these players to coexist even if we grumble about the effectiveness of a player on occasion.

It's one of 4e's big conceptual success, I think: a resilience to players of differing levels of expertise/system mastery/whatnot. That is a big win for people doing what they want to do with the game, and it's something I can see 5e expanding on (such as by applying that resilience broadly to all the adventure, rather than just the combat encounter).

Ah, but you see, the whole system fails to collapse if the players go, "Hm, if I build my character and seek out magic items and all to really maximize my most important ability scores, things get kinda silly. Maybe I won't do that." That's what I mean by, "stepping around the holes in the game".

Sure, but then if you want to play "the strongest character," you have to go around getting Strength bonuses. You can go around the hole, but the hole's still there.

Ah. You see, I've never seen a game "grow" in anything like that sense. A game is what it is. It is a set of rules, pretty much static. It is not, as you put it, "living".

Depends upon your perspective, I guess. Every tabletop RPG I play is an example of the robustness of the game of make-believe, how it can bend and flex and change to accommodate different playstyles at different points in time with different groups. I'd prefer my D&D to be nearly as flexible as that, to be an aid to take my imagination in a particular direction.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but then if you want to play "the strongest character," you have to go around getting Strength bonuses. You can go around the hole, but the hole's still there.

Yes. The hole is still there. My original posit is that you can't really get rid of all the holes in a game, and *EVERY* game has holes.

But, to use your example, if you want to play "the strongest character", I note that makes it a relative thing - you have to be stronger than the other characters, is all. If everyone else has a 12 strength, a 16 makes you the strongest, but isn't really busting up the system with massive bonuses. All that's requires is a simple agreement on character build style among the group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes. The hole is still there. My original posit is that you can't really get rid of all the holes in a game, and *EVERY* game has holes.

Sure, but with a game that is changable and flowing, you can make sure that you never have to deal with any.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but with a game that is changeable and flowing, you can make sure that you never have to deal with any.

I think maybe you and I have some semantic disagreements. As far as I am concerned, for purposes of most discussion around here, "Make believe" is not a single game. My switching from 2e to 3e was not a demonstration of how "make believe" grows, changes, and flows.

"Never have to deal with any," is a very nice ideal, but it implies a mastery and understanding of all the implications of rules before play even starts that is unreasonable to assume. As a practical matter, you will have to deal with the holes - they will not magically disappear before you reach them. At best, they may rather mundanely be dealt with *after* you've stuck your foot in them and twisted our ankle a couple of times.

That being said, all games are somewhat flexible. One can view my suggestion that the players just don't push so hard on getting high stats to be equivalent to setting a low point-buy rule. And in that sense, the game has changed. But that wasn't "the game grew with me" - that's just me setting a house rule. I do not see the value in phrasing that in more highfalutin language.

 

[keterys]

I think it'd be an interesting and fair experiment to bound 4e's stats:
Except for ability and skill checks, treat any ability score modifier over +5 (ie, what a 20 gives you) as +5.

So, if a power tells you it gives an enemy -Cha to all defenses, that's -5 even if you could go up to -10 from a 30 Cha.

I'd also be tempted at the same time to introduce anti-stacking rules for penalties and most bonuses, where they just don't stack, or cap at +/-5 if they affect a d20 roll. A bit more system surgery to make it work, but I think you could do it easily enough.