Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sunshadow21" data-source="post: 6662492" data-attributes="member: 6667193">This to me sums up my feelings on both of these systems, and the biggest problem with either isn't really the system itself, but the culture around then. I am tired of both the legacy of the player entitled viewpoint that dominates the 3.x/PF crowd, and equally dislike the stance taken by 5E and most of it's adherents that players can't do anything at all without first asking the DM. The former denies the critical role and extra time the DM spends on a campaign; the latter has the problem of eating up far too much (usually limited) game time on mundane paperwork and questions rather than focusing on the actual campaign. I am actually to the point where neither system (or D&D in any other version) would be my preferred system. The two very different views on the player vs DM debate and the magic vs martial debate that exist in D&D and always have from it's very inception make it hard to find a group of people that can actually agree on "all" of the necessary basics, meaning that there is almost always friction at the table that cannot be entirely ignored for those not blessed with a permanent group that has played together consistently for a long time. The biggest challenge is that D&D was designed to emulate a fairly specific type of fantasy, and really does not translate well to any other type of story (be it fantasy or a different genre entirely) without basically ignoring or changing a lot of the underlying rules and assumptions. It was never really designed to emulate greek mythology or Conan and true high magic worlds like Faerun also suffer a lot of problems as well. The biggest thing I've taken from 5E is that D&D as a whole is not a balanced system, will never be a balanced system, and while it can be really fun at the right table with the right people, finding that table is pretty much like winning the lottery. I still enjoy PF and would almost certainly enjoy 5E with the right DM, but I am at a point where I would be ecstatic if more tables were willing to consider the wide library of non-D&D systems out there, even if it was just for the occasional break from a long term campaign. I am in a Pendragon campaign and loving it; I wouldn't want it to be the only game I played, but as one of several, it's fantastic to have a system that knows what kind of story it wants to tell, and does so extremely well. D&D's biggest problem has become that it was originally designed for one thing, but has fallen into the position of having to try to adapt to be everything all at once, and that makes for a lot of frustration at a table that most other systems simply don't have; most other systems people like or they don't and play it or move on. D&D, for better or for worse, is a completely unique beast that can entice and enrage people at the same time, often the same person with the same mechanic.To the OP, if you get tired of running PF, perhaps you could convince your group to play the occasional one off of 5E as a break, as several of the opinions seemed to not mind the system in that capacity. That would allow you to play and tweak the system you want while allowing the group to become more comfortable with it. Just because they don't want it as a campaign, it sounds like at least a few of them did seem open to the occasional adventure. It doesn't have to be an either/or; both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Occasionally present them an option of which one they feel like that given week.</blockquote>

Verification