Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8642220" data-attributes="member: 18">Oh boy great example.I mean, if I'm assessing quality and speaking relatively to RPGs over the last 30 years or whatever, D&D 5E is undoubtedly a high-quality RPG with some surprising flaws, and most of the flaws relate to one of four somewhat interrelated issues:1) A number of systems seem to be tacked-on and not fully integrated, and some of the decisions don't seem to be fully considered.Hit Dice being my example of choice. This seems likely to be a combination of changing from a more-modular to less-modular design, and going with some haste (which 4E and 3E also did, the haste thing). It also relates to point 3.2) The definitely-optional systems and so on in the DMG are very poorly considered and constructed.A lot of them needlessly group together a bunch of stuff, at least one is upside-down, and others seem to be the sort of thing you might muse about for a Dragon article, and then develop further before actually even publishing that Dragon article.3) The design of the game overall, despite some really modernist and brilliant stuff like bounded accuracy and its attendant systems, is more retrograde than I believe it would have been had they not decided to make it an "apology edition" specifically. This hasn't damaged the success of 5E measurably, because the high accessibility was an incredibly right choice (one 3E and 4E did not make), but it did harm the design and functionality of some classes/abilities/etc. I would not say this is a huge deal at launch, though it is quite distinctive. It also caused some bad, bad decisions to be made later on (see VGtM lore and so on) that are resonating to this day and are a bigger deal. WotC are addressing those though.4) Failure to address the "post-10" problem in any meaningful way.1/2/3E all had issues where they became less playable after 10 (I would personally say this was less of a problem in 1E/2E than 3E), and 5E does very little to fix that. People do play it after that, hey I have a level 16-ish game, albeit we don't often play that campaign. But there was no real focused effort to make this work. 4E, on the other hand, did make a focused effort to keep things playable at higher levels, and then Sideshow Bob Rake'd itself in the face with specific ability design at level 11+ (waaaaay too many abilities that use Reactions, Interrupts, or Immediate Actions). But it did try!Nevertheless, the extremely accessibility of the rules - remarkable for a game that's either at the high of medium crunch, or the low end of high crunch - the speed with which a character can be put together, and the the frankly largely well-designed and pleasant to use rulebooks (the DMG being dramatically the weakest) mean that I'd assess 5E has in the upper tier of quality as RPGs go, both in form and aesthetics. Quite high in the upper tier.So I mean if that pleases [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] to hear, great. I would say 5E is high-quality. It does contain some flaws of vary severity, and a few severely borked systems, but that's pretty good for an RPG. It's not like it's like, WW's Scion, for example, which was majestic, cool concept, and totally broken ruleswise top-to-bottom. That's what I'd call low-quality personally, despite attractive presentation and good concepts, the rules just were fundamentally crap.</blockquote>

Verification