D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Imaro]

How is it different? You remove the SC and it still happens.

But wasn't the problem that SCs forced people to participate?

At this point the problem seems to be the skill system and player expectations.

Honestly I believe the problem isn't one thing... it's how it all came together. I can only speak from my experiences with them but I found SC's...
1. Had badly defined usage parameters.
2. Took up more time because of their formalized structure than freeform skill checks and fiction.
3. Forced participation, which in turn created an environment where a character had to find a way to act even if they didn't want to or knew it would adversely affect the party.
3a. This tended to result in an often awkward, and drawn out player and DM back and forth of semi-ridiculous justifications for inappropriate skills or some truly inspired out of the box creativity which either way took up way more time than it should have to explain and justify.
4. They tied XP to it's successful completion, incentivizing min-maxing.
5. The math was wonky (though this was corrected in future books).

I AM discussing group checks, because that's the missing piece that sort of fell out of the 4e skill rules.

Got it and i think I agree.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honestly I believe the problem isn't one thing... it's how it all came together. I can only speak from my experiences with them but I found SC's...
1. Had badly defined usage parameters.

Parameters and examples. Adventure designers used them badly all the time.

2. Took up more time because of their formalized structure than freeform skill checks and fiction.

Linked to 1. Better guidance would have fixed this.

3. Forced participation, which in turn created an environment where a character had to find a way to act even if they didn't want to or knew it would adversely affect the party.
3a. This tended to result in an often awkward, and drawn out player and DM back and forth of semi-ridiculous justifications for inappropriate skills or some truly inspired out of the box creativity which either way took up way more time than it should have to explain and justify.

Again, that wasn't my reading of it. The language says 'each player', but there's no penalty for not doing ig.

4. They tied XP to it's successful completion, incentivizing min-maxing.

The real enemy is still using XP, IMO.

5. The math was wonky (though this was corrected in future books).

Story of 4e's life.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure. However, I think 4e’s strength was built on things working tightly together and that most fans expected to do so by the book. If that is not the way it was I will listen to alternative experiences.

I mean I had a whole thread (about a month ago) about how I didn't notice a change from 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e in style of play just that they system wasn't fighting me... so maybe (I came to the conclusion) I had ALWAYS been playing 4e. SO because of that I am not sure if my experience will help.

Most criticisms of 5e being too loose must be viewed in light of purportedly tighter rules and what they solve.

I can see that... in someways I do enjoy 5e, but I prefer a tight well oiled machine that i can fiddle with over a loose idea of a machine that I almost have to fiddle with...
also the other part of 4e I enjoyed was fighters and fighter types (called martial classes in4e) got cool abilities to choose from every level and had as many options in any given situation (or at least close) as the casters... I have said many times if 5e gave me a martial character that wasn't fluffed as magic based on the Warlock or Artificer chasie (prefer warlock) I might not have half the issues I do with 5e

 

[Parmandur]

I mean I had a whole thread (about a month ago) about how I didn't notice a change from 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e in style of play just that they system wasn't fighting me... so maybe (I came to the conclusion) I had ALWAYS been playing 4e. SO because of that I am not sure if my experience will help.

That's about my experience of 5E: everything my 3E group in College did that I thought was weird turns out to have been us playing 3E like it was 5E.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I mean I had a whole thread (about a month ago) about how I didn't notice a change from 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e in style of play just that they system wasn't fighting me... so maybe (I came to the conclusion) I had ALWAYS been playing 4e. SO because of that I am not sure if my experience will help.

I can see that... in someways I do enjoy 5e, but I prefer a tight well oiled machine that i can fiddle with over a loose idea of a machine that I almost have to fiddle with...

also the other part of 4e I enjoyed was fighters and fighter types (called martial classes in4e) got cool abilities to choose from every level and had as many options in any given situation (or at least close) as the casters... I have said many times if 5e gave me a martial character that wasn't fluffed as magic based on the Warlock or Artificer chasie (prefer warlock) I might not have half the issues I do with 5e

That’s cool. To an extent, I get it. I play blade warlocks or even clerics but fighters less often.

Most people enjoy new toys! I just did not have a good feeling about the flavor of martial Characters with nearly spell like effects. And it’s totally fine. Taste is just that. Mine is not really “contemporary” but I value what I value.

I think you are far from alone in some of your preferences. Warlords etc are missed by a fair number of folks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not that I remember, but I have only played with a tiny fraction of total 5e players (and mostly old hands who knew how these kind of things worked before 5e was even thought of). You know who else has only played with a tiny fraction of total 5e players? You!

So in the total sample of the people, you and the other poster encountered, there are 0 (zero) people confused by it, so even if it is only a tiny fraction, you can make an educated guess that it might be not confusing...
... this is how statistics work (but of course, we live in times where you just don't believe in statistics, but instead listen to your gut feeling).

Edited for clarity that the sample size is not 2.

 

[Eric V]

No. You made statements that came across very much as though you were unquestionably correct because you’re a teacher, as if you had no biases. Pointing that out does not imply that I have no biases.

I just went back and read what I wrote. I made an observation for which I have experience, and in no way did I present as "unquestionably correct because you’re a teacher." Mentioning the teacher experience means I am coming to this with a greater set of data then "a few kids I know who play." That's it. You want to read it as a "proclamation from on high?" That's on you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

actually studies show that when economic turn down ward and there is a financial issue you find movies books and games go up not down in sales... when you don't have much you spend what little you do have on entertainment.

if anything this covid crisis was a boon to hasbro and wotc

Thumbs up for mentioning statistics. Even beeter if you had a link, but I take your word on it, as it makes sense to me.

Especially since the cost/time spent value of games is way higher than anything I can imagine.
Vacation, cappuccino etc. is all way more expensive than just buying a stack of cards or some dice and have fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So in the total sample of you and the other poster, there are 0 (zero) people confused by it, so even if it is only a tiny fraction, you can make an educated guess that it might be not confusing...
... this is how statistics work (but of course, we live in times where you just don't believe in statistics, but instead listen to your gut feeling).

Most studies reply on a sample size of 2.

This is how we know all people have brown hair and eyes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's about my experience of 5E: everything my 3E group in College did that I thought was weird turns out to have been us playing 3E like it was 5E.

yeah that is it with us and 4e