Save Me 5TH !

[Aramax]

Ok,Im not happy with any of my gaming options.
I ran 4th through L 25,so I gave it a good try,and felt the flaws out wieghed the very good things about it.
Im playing Pathfinder now and Im not overly happy about that either,
Im just not comfortable with how powerful the 1st l chars are.
I really miss the at wills from 4th
I really miss the vancian casting from 3.5
I feel like Goldylocks
This ones too hot,this ones too cold.........

 

[Astrosicebear]

I would venture to guess that you are exactly what Wizards' talking about with uniting the player base with the new edition.

If it is as they say, you can have at-wills as feats, vanican magic for those classes like wizards and clerics, and drop in a low power ruleset/module to allow more lethality. Play D&D how you and your players want to, but BE playing Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Help me 5E-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope ...

 

[BobTheNob]

Im exactly where you are. Been doing this for so long and am coming to the understanding that there is not such thing as a perfect system...it just doesnt exist.

Starting from where we are now (post 4e) 4e attempted something new, but for all its elegance, it was just TOO much (which Id probably argue the same for 3e as well). We had forgotten that we still had fun in the 1e days when things wered simple and that mechanical awesome isn't necessarily more fun.

The things Im settling for in my mind is simplification. After 4e's saturation mechanical approach, I just want a game that can be played casually and occasionally in 1hr sessions. In the end, if I were Goldilocks, I guess that means Im settling for the cold porridge...it aint perfect, but nothing will be, and that's what I can swallow

 

[Tony Vargas]

People are playing 4e in casual, 1-2 hours sessions, every Wednesday.

4e seems mechanically dense because the mechanics are clear and flluff is segregated. You don't read through a 4e spell and get a cool sense of what it does, only to have to read through it again seven more times and spend an hour of game time arguing, debating, comparing it to other rules, and finally making an arbitrary ruling that pisses off at least one player. You read a 4e spell and get a one-sentence description that the player has explicit permision to change/ignore, and a clear mechanical definition of how it works.

What's really 'more mechanics?' 3 scentences of clear rules, or 3 paragraphs of mixed fluff and rules with no way to tease one out from the other?

 

[Jiggawatts]

Save us Y2J

 

[Oni]

People are playing 4e in casual, 1-2 hours sessions, every Wednesday.

4e seems mechanically dense because the mechanics are clear and flluff is segregated. You don't read through a 4e spell and get a cool sense of what it does, only to have to read through it again seven more times and spend an hour of game time arguing, debating, comparing it to other rules, and finally making an arbitrary ruling that pisses off at least one player. You read a 4e spell and get a one-sentence description that the player has explicit permision to change/ignore, and a clear mechanical definition of how it works.

What's really 'more mechanics?' 3 scentences of clear rules, or 3 paragraphs of mixed fluff and rules with no way to tease one out from the other?

That space for interpretation is precisely what makes magic in all the previous editions of the game interesting. More over the fluff is so minimized and the separation between fluff and mechanics so severe in 4e that it gives very little notion of the spell as anything but a means for mechanically interacting with the combat system, which will almost invariable be damage expression plus something off a set list of status effects.

 

[BobTheNob]

People are playing 4e in casual, 1-2 hours sessions, every Wednesday.

4e seems mechanically dense because the mechanics are clear and flluff is segregated. You don't read through a 4e spell and get a cool sense of what it does, only to have to read through it again seven more times and spend an hour of game time arguing, debating, comparing it to other rules, and finally making an arbitrary ruling that pisses off at least one player. You read a 4e spell and get a one-sentence description that the player has explicit permision to change/ignore, and a clear mechanical definition of how it works.

What's really 'more mechanics?' 3 scentences of clear rules, or 3 paragraphs of mixed fluff and rules with no way to tease one out from the other?

I did DM the game for 2.5 years taking a party from 1st through 28th. Dont get me wrong, 4e is elegant, no doubt, but to me it was a mechanical game, just as 3e was.

I found 4e a mechanical game, which very clearly defined what a character could do. But every time you define what they can do, you just as clearly define what they cant, and I think thats where it lost the magic for me.

 

[Ichneumon]

Shave me, 5th! It's getting bristly round here.

It could be the edition that my group all happily play, if only I can get them past their not-another-edition ennui. A playtest could help.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That space for interpretation is precisely what makes magic in all the previous editions of the game interesting.

It's not 'space for interpretation' it's failure to communicate to the customer the content of the game. Rule 0 gives every ed of the game (whether rule 0 existed or not) all the space you could ever want. You can change whatever you want - if you have clear rules to start with, at least you can do so advisedly, and communicate the change to your players just as clearly.

I sometimes wonder if that's the point. If you have a clear rule, you can change it, but your players will /know/ you changed it. If you have a vague rule, you can interpret it the way you like, and your word is final, but you can represent to your players that you're still playing the 'unmodified' game.

More over the fluff is so minimized and the separation between fluff and mechanics so severe in 4e that it gives very little notion of the spell as anything but a means for mechanically interacting with the combat system, which will almost invariable be damage expression plus something off a set list of status effects.

By the same token as lack of clear functional rules being 'room for interpretation,' I guess lack of voluminous flavor text is 'room for imagination.'