Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 7655717" data-attributes="member: 58416">I'd say granularity is probably a good word to use.&nbsp; I would like some of the modules to provide more of it.&nbsp; I like that 5E can be simple and be set up in a relatively casual manner without much prep, but, for a home campaign, I'd like a bit more substance to keep me interested.&nbsp; The modules -while good- are currently so broad that I'm not sure they really add the substance I'm looking for.&nbsp; (Though I will say that I was pleasantly surprised by the lasting injuries option.)Unfortunately, Pathfinder isn't what I want either.&nbsp; While I also enjoy that game (and honestly believe it did improve upon 3rd Edition,) it still contains a lot of the things that bothered me about 3rd.&nbsp; Most notably, there is too much of a gap between levels.&nbsp; I also vastly prefer the encounter design mentality behind something like D&amp;D 4th Edition in that there should be a lot of moving parts during an encounter as opposed to one or two creatures against the party.&nbsp; I had hoped that the &quot;bounded accuracy&quot; and &quot;modularity&quot; of 5th Edition would combine to provide a game closer to what I want.&nbsp; However, while I am capable of enjoying the game, neither the bounded accuracy nor the modularity have produced results I was looking for.&nbsp; That is part of why I think the DMG fell short for me; it was a good book, but it didn't add (for me personally) anything to the game; also, even with more in depth encounter design guidelines, I still don't have a good feel for what kind of game 5th is trying to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 7655717, member: 58416"] I'd say granularity is probably a good word to use. I would like some of the modules to provide more of it. I like that 5E can be simple and be set up in a relatively casual manner without much prep, but, for a home campaign, I'd like a bit more substance to keep me interested. The modules -while good- are currently so broad that I'm not sure they really add the substance I'm looking for. (Though I will say that I was pleasantly surprised by the lasting injuries option.) Unfortunately, Pathfinder isn't what I want either. While I also enjoy that game (and honestly believe it did improve upon 3rd Edition,) it still contains a lot of the things that bothered me about 3rd. Most notably, there is too much of a gap between levels. I also vastly prefer the encounter design mentality behind something like D&D 4th Edition in that there should be a lot of moving parts during an encounter as opposed to one or two creatures against the party. I had hoped that the "bounded accuracy" and "modularity" of 5th Edition would combine to provide a game closer to what I want. However, while I am capable of enjoying the game, neither the bounded accuracy nor the modularity have produced results I was looking for. That is part of why I think the DMG fell short for me; it was a good book, but it didn't add (for me personally) anything to the game; also, even with more in depth encounter design guidelines, I still don't have a good feel for what kind of game 5th is trying to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification