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: 6261635" data-attributes="member: 58416">For what it's worth, I want neither an "adventuring game" nor a "PvP" game.  I want a rpg.  I used the PvP scenario because, as already said, it highlight a problem I see with the current version of the game.  I don't expect disparity to be completely eliminated.  I'm just having a really hard time believing that the amount which currently exists should be accepted as normal or as good design for the game.  I used the 4E example a few posts ago to try to illustrate what I'm trying to say.  I don't feel that the way D&D PCs and the math they are based upon interacts with the game world "physics engine" (for a lack of better words) math in a very consistent way.  In the case of 4E, I saw a disparity between how the monsters and the PCs interacted with the world they lived in.  I was fine with the different rules for PC and non-PC; it bothered me that neither side of the equation seemed to interact with the game world in anything resembling a consistent manner.  Now, in 5th Edition, it seems I still have the same problem, but then I also add to that a second level of disparity between PCs with each other.  I see that as making a problem I had with the previous edition worse; not better.So, apparently, I'm doing it wrong, but I find that strange because a design goal was (I thought) to further support multiple pillars of play.  However, if there are more assumptions being made about the activities my PC is doing, then I'm having trouble seeing how giving me a more narrow definition of what is correct play supports the goal of more pillars being supported.  I'd prefer to see the game give me a wider variety of actions and character choices which are viewed as valid; not make design choices and create disparity, but then say those choices and disparities are intention... that I should be playing a specific way so as to not notice them.  So, if there are more things I am supposed to avoid so as to be playing the game right, it seems, logically, that I'm being asked to play the game more narrowly; not being given more freedom to explore other 'pillars of play.'  Am I somehow completely misinterpreting every buzzword used to promote the game?  It seems that I am.  So, with that in mind, I feel like I've spent several months playtesting and exploring the 5E rule set only to come to the conclusion that I have very little idea about what kind of game WoTC is publishing.  Whatever it is, as of the time I type this, it seems that I'm apparently not the target audience.  I want "bounded accuracy" to actually mean flatter math.  I very much liked that 4E flattened out the power curve between levels in comparison to 3rd.  I had expected 5th to flatten it out more.  I learned a while back that that desire is not at all what "bounded accuracy" is meant to mean.  My question now when consider it is whether the people designing the game know what they mean by it because sometimes I'm not entirely sure.I want different pillars of play to be further supported.  That doesn't just mean tacking on an overland travel mini-game.  While I applauded the idea of skill challenges in theory, their implementation with the rest of the previous edition never really felt smooth to me.  I could always still see the cracks between what I can only call 'combat mode' and 'skill challenge mode.'  The transition from one to the other never really felt as smooth as it should have.  There have been some really good DMs I've played with who found ways to integrate the different parts of the game together, but, by default, some of 4E's parts just never quite seemed like they were part of the same game.  I don't want 5th to feel like that.  Instead of tacking things on, it would be nice if the base; the core foundation of the rules, was able to support those other pillars.So, how do either of those things relate to my OP?  I believe that actually having a more flat math basis, and also trying to create a rules set which doesn't specifically call out such a specific manner of play and problem resolution would be one in which different classes could be built differently, but still not seem so far apart when a group decided to play the game a little differently.  Especially when that decision to play differently than the status quo is prompted by the adventure design of the same company which is designing the game.  So, I'm supposed to play the part of my character, but not making decisions I feel the character would make if it goes against the officially sanctioned way of playing the game, but then I'm going to be given adventures which are designed to put me in situations where it's completely reasonable that I would make decisions that would go against the assumed way of playing the game?I see a problem there.  I'd vastly prefer to play a game in which -most of the time- I can choose what I think my character should do rather than be pushed into choosing what the game thinks I should do.  I understand making sacrifices so as to play a group game; I'm not the only person at the table.  What I don't understand are the mixed messages I feel I'm getting from the game about what style of game it wants to be and how I'm supposed to interact with it.  The language being used to describe the game doesn't seem to mean what I'd take most of the words to mean, and I perceive a conflict between what the mechanics of the game say I should be doing and what the fluff & adventure design thus far seems to encourage.edit: I find a problem with sleep and D&D style magic too, but, if some of the other threads are any indication, any mention of increasing casting time or adding some other draw back to such spells is against the spirit of D&D.  I've been told that casters being able to turn everyone else into dust is how you know the game is working properly.</blockquote>

Verification