Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8360062" data-attributes="member: 16814">The only genre 5e does well is D&amp;D.&nbsp; You can do D&amp;D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&amp;D, and you can do D&amp;D noir (which is very weird).&nbsp; But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&amp;D.&nbsp; The different flavors of D&amp;D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&amp;D.&nbsp; And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people.&nbsp; As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&amp;D genre.&nbsp; It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; The shift in D&amp;D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM.&nbsp; 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules.&nbsp; 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first.&nbsp; 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides.&nbsp; This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions).Look, I get it.&nbsp; You have a different approach to 5e than I do.&nbsp; But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always.&nbsp; That's... not a big difference.&nbsp; Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them.&nbsp; Again, not a big difference.&nbsp; It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does.&nbsp; But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play.&nbsp; When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where.&nbsp; Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; That indicates a pretty small range of difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8360062, member: 16814"] The only genre 5e does well is D&D. You can do D&D in space, you can do post-apocalypse D&D, and you can do D&D noir (which is very weird). But it's nearly impossible for 5e to not be D&D. The different flavors of D&D you can do aren't full genres, but rather some genre flavor sprinkled on top of D&D. And we're not talking heavy houserules, here, because that's where we get into playing Risk with Monopoly -- this isn't a feature of 5e, it's a feature of people. As a system, even with modest tweaking, 5e is very hard to move away from the D&D genre. It's baked in, with the classes, the spell lists, the tight focus on combat, the blurry focus on everything else -- anything you try to do with 5e with just a setting swap is still playing D&D. The shift in D&D over the past few editions is noticeable, but it's really only about if the players have the expectations that the rules are to be consulted first or the GM. 3.x was rules first, and had to many rules. 4e hit a nice balance with many fewer and more adaptable rules (ie, broader and less specific) while reinforcing rules first. 5e went back to 2e where it's just the GM decides. This isn't really a big shift, because in all of them, the GM is still the center of everything setting and all fiction outside of character action attempts (4e has a break here, because you can play it in a wildly different style, that of a narrativist or Story Now game, this is the only real difference in style in the last few editions). Look, I get it. You have a different approach to 5e than I do. But, if we get down to brass tacks, that difference is that you prefer full on play-acting out social scenes and deciding what happens as the GM, using mechanics when you feel like it, while I prefer the play-acting, but use the mechanics almost always. That's... not a big difference. Oh, and I like my players to be present actions in clearer terms while you're more comfortable with assumptions for them. Again, not a big difference. It seems big here, because this is a corner of the internet where we discuss such minor differences and unpack them more than your usual gamer does. But it's not evidence of a broad difference in play. When we play 5e, the GM is still the one with all the authority over the fiction, and we use the same mechanical structures to run play, with a few difference in how and where. Every one of the players at your table could sit down at mine and feel like they're playing D&D. That indicates a pretty small range of difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification