Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6878191" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Which'd be a failure of the 'big tent'/'support for more playstyles' goal of 5e. Especially considering that you consider two prior editions - 3e & 4e, themselves very much at odds during the edition war - to both be adequate to your needs.</p><p></p><p>5e is DM-empowering and classic-game evoking, certainly, but I don't believe it's as atavistic as you fear. With the right DM, using the right modules and the right approach, the kind of experience you're looking for can certainly be delivered by 5e. </p><p></p><p>I get that you're probably going to come back with 'but my approach requires DM-independent support' or something like that. All I can offer is that whether your options feel DM-independent depends very much on the attitudes at the table (which, yes, are influenced by the attitudes of the broader community). So, yes, it may be hard to find/foster more player-empowering attitudes/styles in 5e circles, but not because the system, itself, makes it impossible, just because there's been a pendulum swing away from player-empowerment and towards DM-empowerment. Perhaps ironically, but conveniently, a DM can use the latter to re-emphasize the former.</p><p></p><p>Discussion of a system is at odds with the assertion that system doesn't matter. I don't think even AoB meant to take it that far. He was just saying that D&D wasn't particularly more combat-oriented than other 'big name' TTRPGs (and he included Storyteller in that). The only objective measure of combat-orientation is the relative amount of the system devoted to combat - page count, for instance. D&D devotes a large proportion of it's rules to combat - especially considering that you have to include combat spells in that count. Storyteller games treated combat as just another 'dramatic system,' (WWGS hated to admit they actually produced games with actual resolution systems, no matter how intentionally bad they made them) the relative amount of the system devoted to combat vs non-combat 'dramatic systems' in most storyteller games was noticeably less than D&D. Even so, combat probably received a longer more nearly complete treatment than any other single 'dramatic system' in Storyteller.</p><p></p><p>Combat's different in different genres and sub-genres, and the degree to which an RPG models genre vs modeling the setting where a genre story might take place (but probably won't happen to your PC), also varies. A combat scene in FATE or other 'narrativist' RPGs will look/feel and resolve a lot more like an action scene in a book or movie. </p><p></p><p>Easy mistakes to make.</p><p></p><p>He liked 3e & 4e because they were player-empowering. They had mechanics that clearly defined what a character was capable of - because of RaW-uber-alles zietgiest in the case of 3.x/PF, because of clear/above-board mechanics in the case of 4e. He liked using those to build combat-oriented characters. And, yes, sure, D&D has always been and remains combat-centric, but that's not part of the issue, since it's more or less a constant.</p><p></p><p>No, it's really not that narrow, it's DM-empowering. A DM can use that to emphasize RP to whatever extreme suits him, right up to and including never touching dice. He can also very easily use 5e to run an old-school dungeon crawl where there's no point naming, let alone RPing, your character until you're out of apprentice tier.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not a tagline, like 'Back to the dungeon!' was for 3.0, but it's a thing that Mearls has come right out and said if not in those words. And the 'proof' is right there in the release schedule: Two Adventure-path books/year, rolling out almost as fast you can play them. Only one book so far with additional player options, and they were pretty sparse, with mostly setting background ('story' elements) padding it out.</p><p></p><p><em>Yes</em> </p><p></p><p>You ran your whole 4e campaign by page 42? That's kinda awesome, actually. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Did you have anything defining what a given character might be capable of? (For instance, a very similar approach was taken by Mage: the Ascension, but it did have 'spheres' that categorized the kinds of effects that were possible, and characters could combine spheres to do basically anything). </p><p></p><p>Obviously, and spell caster becomes less mundane very quickly, and every class can use spells in some way, with only a handful of sub-classes getting nothing at all in that regard. </p><p></p><p>Starting at 1st level does create a first impression of every character involved being both vulnerable and mundane, and, particularly, that sense of vulnerability can stick with the character from then on, even though, rationally, you know it's become nigh-unkillable.</p><p></p><p>People really were trying to say that. It was called the edition war. It sucked. </p><p></p><p>You'd have to say 'encouraged' instead of 'allowed.' In 5e, the DM is encouraged to dictate resolution notwithstanding the rules (possibly in service to the story, but ultimately in service to any agenda he values). In 4e, as in all RPGs, the DM is also allowed to do so.</p><p></p><p>Less time on a given combat - 5e also assumes twice as many combats per day as 4e tended to. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure that's the case. Dictating flavor with mechanics isn't exactly the most flexible approach.</p><p></p><p>Overpowered fireballs and random character death = 'roleplaying?' ;P</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6878191, member: 996"] Which'd be a failure of the 'big tent'/'support for more playstyles' goal of 5e. Especially considering that you consider two prior editions - 3e & 4e, themselves very much at odds during the edition war - to both be adequate to your needs. 5e is DM-empowering and classic-game evoking, certainly, but I don't believe it's as atavistic as you fear. With the right DM, using the right modules and the right approach, the kind of experience you're looking for can certainly be delivered by 5e. I get that you're probably going to come back with 'but my approach requires DM-independent support' or something like that. All I can offer is that whether your options feel DM-independent depends very much on the attitudes at the table (which, yes, are influenced by the attitudes of the broader community). So, yes, it may be hard to find/foster more player-empowering attitudes/styles in 5e circles, but not because the system, itself, makes it impossible, just because there's been a pendulum swing away from player-empowerment and towards DM-empowerment. Perhaps ironically, but conveniently, a DM can use the latter to re-emphasize the former. Discussion of a system is at odds with the assertion that system doesn't matter. I don't think even AoB meant to take it that far. He was just saying that D&D wasn't particularly more combat-oriented than other 'big name' TTRPGs (and he included Storyteller in that). The only objective measure of combat-orientation is the relative amount of the system devoted to combat - page count, for instance. D&D devotes a large proportion of it's rules to combat - especially considering that you have to include combat spells in that count. Storyteller games treated combat as just another 'dramatic system,' (WWGS hated to admit they actually produced games with actual resolution systems, no matter how intentionally bad they made them) the relative amount of the system devoted to combat vs non-combat 'dramatic systems' in most storyteller games was noticeably less than D&D. Even so, combat probably received a longer more nearly complete treatment than any other single 'dramatic system' in Storyteller. Combat's different in different genres and sub-genres, and the degree to which an RPG models genre vs modeling the setting where a genre story might take place (but probably won't happen to your PC), also varies. A combat scene in FATE or other 'narrativist' RPGs will look/feel and resolve a lot more like an action scene in a book or movie. Easy mistakes to make. He liked 3e & 4e because they were player-empowering. They had mechanics that clearly defined what a character was capable of - because of RaW-uber-alles zietgiest in the case of 3.x/PF, because of clear/above-board mechanics in the case of 4e. He liked using those to build combat-oriented characters. And, yes, sure, D&D has always been and remains combat-centric, but that's not part of the issue, since it's more or less a constant. No, it's really not that narrow, it's DM-empowering. A DM can use that to emphasize RP to whatever extreme suits him, right up to and including never touching dice. He can also very easily use 5e to run an old-school dungeon crawl where there's no point naming, let alone RPing, your character until you're out of apprentice tier. It's not a tagline, like 'Back to the dungeon!' was for 3.0, but it's a thing that Mearls has come right out and said if not in those words. And the 'proof' is right there in the release schedule: Two Adventure-path books/year, rolling out almost as fast you can play them. Only one book so far with additional player options, and they were pretty sparse, with mostly setting background ('story' elements) padding it out. [i]Yes[/i] You ran your whole 4e campaign by page 42? That's kinda awesome, actually. :) Did you have anything defining what a given character might be capable of? (For instance, a very similar approach was taken by Mage: the Ascension, but it did have 'spheres' that categorized the kinds of effects that were possible, and characters could combine spheres to do basically anything). Obviously, and spell caster becomes less mundane very quickly, and every class can use spells in some way, with only a handful of sub-classes getting nothing at all in that regard. Starting at 1st level does create a first impression of every character involved being both vulnerable and mundane, and, particularly, that sense of vulnerability can stick with the character from then on, even though, rationally, you know it's become nigh-unkillable. People really were trying to say that. It was called the edition war. It sucked. You'd have to say 'encouraged' instead of 'allowed.' In 5e, the DM is encouraged to dictate resolution notwithstanding the rules (possibly in service to the story, but ultimately in service to any agenda he values). In 4e, as in all RPGs, the DM is also allowed to do so. Less time on a given combat - 5e also assumes twice as many combats per day as 4e tended to. I'm not sure that's the case. Dictating flavor with mechanics isn't exactly the most flexible approach. Overpowered fireballs and random character death = 'roleplaying?' ;P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E
Top