Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7744296" data-attributes="member: 996">2e streamlined some of the baroque Gygaxian chaos of 1e, but also got very bloated towards the end.&nbsp; 3.0, by comparison, was consolidated and streamlined at it's core, 3.5 also became bloated, and PF even more so.&nbsp; 5e is /smaller/ than those editions at the end of their runs (even 1e, for the moment, I think), but, at it's core, not particularly simpler than 3.x/PF or any other d20 games that use Class/Level, extensive spell lists, varied spell-casting sub-systems, modular multi-classing, etc....&nbsp; ...it really differs in where the complexity is experienced and how it feels.&nbsp; Compared to 3e or 4e, for instance, 5e's complexity feels more familiar to players most comfortable with AD&amp;D or other TSR versions, and familiar complexity feels simpler than novel simplicity.&nbsp; 5e's complexity is heavily borne by the DM, and how hard it hits players depends on class choices (and how they're arrived at).&nbsp; If you just pick a (sub) class based on what sounds fun, and it happens to be Champion Fighter, you experience far less complexity, if it happens to be a Druid or Wizard, a lot more&nbsp; - the DM, OTOH, has to keep all the party's classes straight - and work at balancing them with eachother in the context of his campaign.&nbsp; ;P&nbsp; (As a player, if you really want to acquire system mastery and evaluate/understand all the classes, then the 5e PH presents at least as much complexity as the 3.5 PH1, and more than the 4e PH1 - and you can make the game almost as hard on yourself as it is on your DM.&nbsp; And, again, the only thing saving 5e is the relative lack of supplements.)&nbsp;13A has been out a year or so longer than 5e, but isn't any more bloated, I don't think.&nbsp; It's easier to run than 5e, but doesn't lend itself so much to the classic style and old-school techniques that make running 5e so much fun (for some of us).&nbsp; It's fun to run in it's own right, though, just a very different kind of fun.&nbsp; 4e was just /easy/ to run.&nbsp; Like phone-it-in, less prep time than any one player put into it, easy - which could actually make it less engaging to run than to play, but is convenient when running 1/week, right after work...&nbsp; &nbsp; In contrast, I quite enjoy running 5e, but have felt little urge to play it, perhaps because it is so lacking in player options compared to 3.x/PF &amp; 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7744296, member: 996"] 2e streamlined some of the baroque Gygaxian chaos of 1e, but also got very bloated towards the end. 3.0, by comparison, was consolidated and streamlined at it's core, 3.5 also became bloated, and PF even more so. 5e is /smaller/ than those editions at the end of their runs (even 1e, for the moment, I think), but, at it's core, not particularly simpler than 3.x/PF or any other d20 games that use Class/Level, extensive spell lists, varied spell-casting sub-systems, modular multi-classing, etc.... ...it really differs in where the complexity is experienced and how it feels. Compared to 3e or 4e, for instance, 5e's complexity feels more familiar to players most comfortable with AD&D or other TSR versions, and familiar complexity feels simpler than novel simplicity. 5e's complexity is heavily borne by the DM, and how hard it hits players depends on class choices (and how they're arrived at). If you just pick a (sub) class based on what sounds fun, and it happens to be Champion Fighter, you experience far less complexity, if it happens to be a Druid or Wizard, a lot more - the DM, OTOH, has to keep all the party's classes straight - and work at balancing them with eachother in the context of his campaign. ;P (As a player, if you really want to acquire system mastery and evaluate/understand all the classes, then the 5e PH presents at least as much complexity as the 3.5 PH1, and more than the 4e PH1 - and you can make the game almost as hard on yourself as it is on your DM. And, again, the only thing saving 5e is the relative lack of supplements.) 13A has been out a year or so longer than 5e, but isn't any more bloated, I don't think. It's easier to run than 5e, but doesn't lend itself so much to the classic style and old-school techniques that make running 5e so much fun (for some of us). It's fun to run in it's own right, though, just a very different kind of fun. 4e was just /easy/ to run. Like phone-it-in, less prep time than any one player put into it, easy - which could actually make it less engaging to run than to play, but is convenient when running 1/week, right after work... In contrast, I quite enjoy running 5e, but have felt little urge to play it, perhaps because it is so lacking in player options compared to 3.x/PF & 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification