Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6991587" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't mean to cause confusion. You said (paraphrasing) that it's a good trait in a combat system that it can handle quick exchanges and lengthy standoffs/chases etc.I was wondering if you think there is anything distinctivd about 5e that supports this. I'm inferring from your reply &quot;not particularly&quot; except perhaps the systematisation of the ready action.On wargaming vs RPGing - from the theoretical point of view, I think there is room to play with the idea of the &quot;boundaries&quot; of a character (or the character's sphere of control). If a certain NPC (or similar) is, in the fiction, primarily an aspect or &quot;arm&quot; of the character, then sticking them on the PC sheet (either directly, or in some abberviated or statistically mediated from, like the platoon = area attack power) might still be seen as expressing the character in this extended sense.From the practical point of view, I don't think that roleplaying is damaged too badly by these occasional zoomings out or shiftings of focus. Especially when it's auxiliary to or supplemental to playing the character.I think &quot;purism&quot; about RPGing is not that important, and sometimes becomes a club for beating people over the head. From your &quot;I think that's OK&quot; comment, I'm guessing you don't wildly disagree with at least the first clause of the previous sentence.&nbsp;What credit? When I wrote, &quot;At that point, 5E is being a little bit wargame-ish,&quot; that was a descriptive statement, not an attribution of credit. It certainly wasn't a contrast with AD&amp;D--I would have done exactly the same thing in AD&amp;D.If you're referring to &quot;One of my favorite things about the way I've been running initiative for the past couple of years,&quot; that is not the vanilla 5E initiative system. I hate the vanilla 5E initiative system. That is <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?506-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-News-Rules-Homebrews-and-House-Rules" target="_blank">this system*</a>, currently under discussion on another thread. 5E is friendly to rules tweaking, so I'll give it credit for encouraging alternate initiative systems/spell point systems/combat maneuver systems/etc., but that makes it similar to AD&amp;D (2nd edition), not different. I was younger when I played AD&amp;D, so my thinking wasn't as sophisticated then, but the system I use today is directly descended from AD&amp;D initiative. So again, not a contrast with AD&amp;D.-Hemlock/Max* Which I feel like you&nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I have recently discussed somewhere, maybe in the &quot;melee is weak&quot; thread, so I'm surprised if you think I've been running vanilla 5E initiative all this time. But I'm getting old and may be misremembering.</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6991587, member: 42582"] I didn't mean to cause confusion. You said (paraphrasing) that it's a good trait in a combat system that it can handle quick exchanges and lengthy standoffs/chases etc. I was wondering if you think there is anything distinctivd about 5e that supports this. I'm inferring from your reply "not particularly" except perhaps the systematisation of the ready action. On wargaming vs RPGing - from the theoretical point of view, I think there is room to play with the idea of the "boundaries" of a character (or the character's sphere of control). If a certain NPC (or similar) is, in the fiction, primarily an aspect or "arm" of the character, then sticking them on the PC sheet (either directly, or in some abberviated or statistically mediated from, like the platoon = area attack power) might still be seen as expressing the character in this extended sense. From the practical point of view, I don't think that roleplaying is damaged too badly by these occasional zoomings out or shiftings of focus. Especially when it's auxiliary to or supplemental to playing the character. I think "purism" about RPGing is not that important, and sometimes becomes a club for beating people over the head. From your "I think that's OK" comment, I'm guessing you don't wildly disagree with at least the first clause of the previous sentence. What credit? When I wrote, "At that point, 5E is being a little bit wargame-ish," that was a descriptive statement, not an attribution of credit. It certainly wasn't a contrast with AD&D--I would have done exactly the same thing in AD&D. If you're referring to "One of my favorite things about the way I've been running initiative for the past couple of years," that is not the vanilla 5E initiative system. I [I]hate[/I] the vanilla 5E initiative system. That is [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?506-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-News-Rules-Homebrews-and-House-Rules"]this system*[/URL], currently under discussion on another thread. 5E is friendly to rules tweaking, so I'll give it credit for encouraging alternate initiative systems/spell point systems/combat maneuver systems/etc., but that makes it similar to AD&D (2nd edition), not different. I was younger when I played AD&D, so my thinking wasn't as sophisticated then, but the system I use today is directly descended from AD&D initiative. So again, not a contrast with AD&D. -Hemlock/Max * Which I feel like you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I have recently discussed somewhere, maybe in the "melee is weak" thread, so I'm surprised if you think I've been running vanilla 5E initiative all this time. But I'm getting old and may be misremembering.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Verification