Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6261493" data-attributes="member: 58416">Again, I've acknowledge the bold part.  I even somewhat acknowledge the idea of playing a game "wrong."  Some systems are designed with certain things in mind.  Still...While, I understand the idea of teamwork in D&D, and I also understand that every option is not perfectly equal.  I simply found how much difference there was to be more of a variation that I feel should be in the game; especially in an edition which is claiming to be more "bounded."  Part of the problem, I admit, is that I thought something very different was meant by "Bounded Accuracy" than what WoTC means when they use the term.  I had originally thought that would mean much flatter math; something more akin to what people do when they play "E6" games using the 3.5 rules, or perhaps a design which was designed to encourage breadth of play more so than D&D had in the two editions I was most familiar with (3rd and 4th.)  However, I have learned I was wrong in thinking that; what "Bounded Accuracy" seems to mean is simply that there are caps being put on how far certain numbers of the game can advance, but that the game will otherwise advance the same way it has previously -for good or for ill.  I've gotten over that though.The other part of the problem I see is actually the same problem I often had with 4th Edition.  Well, maybe not exactly the same, but similar enough that I think it falls into the same category.  I was perfectly fine with 4E PCs and 4E monsters being built using different rules.  In fact, I feel that design decision turned out pretty well.  Where I found fault with that was the disparity between how 4E PCs interacted with the world versus how 4E NPCs and monsters interacted with the 4E world.  I was fine with the two parts of the game being built differently; it bothered me that the two parts of the game interacted with the game world math (the 'physics engine' if you will) in vastly different ways.  So, how does that relate to what is bothering me about 5th now?I see a similar problem because I still see a disparity between how the two aspects of the game (PC vs non-PC) interact with the math which the game world is built upon.  The disparity is better, but it's still there and noticeable in many circumstances.  The party pretty easily crushed the Ice Witch this season; however, we struggled against one PC.  Surely, there is a way to have the different parts of the game work in a more coherent manner when measured against the math which the game world is built upon.  I believe there is, and I believe finding that can also allow for different classes to be built differently, but still find a way to be measured more equally against each other.  I believe that because some of the other rpgs I play don't have classes at all, yet it still somehow manages to be possible in them -even with the designers needing to consider such a wide range of possibilities.  With classes, and D&D style level progression, the advancement and expected numbers output of PCs is reduced to a handful of values; a more limited number of possibilities.  Yet, I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible to produce what I feel would be a more coherent relationship between the parts of the D&D game?  I'm not asking for perfection; I don't expect perfection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to feel that one PC being able to nearly TPK the rest of the party on a whim is a problem with the game.Now, that's only looking at it from my point of view.  Many others who have commented have brought up other considerations which I wasn't even thinking of when I made my OP.  I too thought of other things with later posts (including this one.)-Mind Control abilities...  How does this disparity play into judging appropriate encounters?  As a DM, do I need to worry about the barbarian easily killing the rest of the party if he's dominated for a round or two?  If I instead dominate a member of the a different class, does my monster's tactic become effectively worthless?  -Adding class abilities to a monster...  Does adding a level of ______ class turn this encounter into a death sentence for some of the PCs?  In contrast, is adding a level of _______ pointless?-Can people in the game world notice the disparities?    "Why would I spend X weeks learning how to be class Y when I could instead take the same amount of time to learn this other stuff which is way more effective?"The biggest argument I keep saying against what I've posted has been "well, that's just how D&D is."  Oddly, that sounds an awful lot like the argument I see in other threads for why mundane classes should play the part of the wizard's sidekick at higher levels.  Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was of the impression that a new edition was supposed to improve the game.  I get the idea behind keeping older ideas and trying to draw in the crowd from previous editions, but at what point does the new design begin to improve upon the game if "well, that's just how it always is" is a valid excuse for keeping what I view as.......actually, nevermind.  There are a lot of other things I was going to type, but I guess maybe I am just playing the game wrong and expecting the wrong things.  It feel like no matter what I post when I say have an issue with 5th edition; no matter what it is, the answer is that I'm playing the game wrong.  If that's always the answer, then I suppose I must be doing it wrong.  5th Edition is greatest rpg in the universe; if any player at any table is having a problem, they must be playing the game wrong.  I found what I thought was a problem, but, in reality, I was simply playing the game wrong.  I apologize.</blockquote>

Verification