Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7446919" data-attributes="member: 16814">Um, no.  We have a very different interpretation of the post that stated this side discussion.  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] brought up kitbashing, but neither AImaro or myself have, like, at all.  You're smearing different lines of argument from different posters together to discredit everything.It is close, for a bit, but, yes, then it's gone because the 5e system doesn't cater to it as well or as often as Fate does.  Was I not clear about that?  I thought I was clear about that.  I did say that FATE does it better, right -- yes, yes, I think I did say that, more than once in more than one response to you.  Instead, you seem to have replaced what I actually said with some pastiche of Lanefan's comments and your own imaginings.That wasn't the question.  The question was 'what do other systems do that 5e doesn't at least touch on?'  And I answered that in two ways:  1) compelling aspects from FATE is in the 5e core with backgrounds, middle path adjudication, and various, in system uses of inspiration and traits, bonds, and flaws.  However, 5e's version is much less robust than FATE's and if what you want is the compelling aspects part of FATE, you really should play FATE because it does this much, much better than 5e.  That said, if what we're considering is play aesthetics, it pays to be fair all around -- FATE is better at this, but 5e does evoke a much weaker version of it, at least occasionally.2) 5e SUCKS at any setting other than fantasy (and, arguably, not even all fantasy).  It can't do cyberpunk, like, at all.  It's iffy at best for horror (largely because all of it's mechanics cut against horror tropes).  In this case, there's a clear play aesthetic that 5e just plain doesn't do that other systems can do.  And not even systems tailored to other settings -- FATE, as I said, is setting agnostic.  You can do cyberpunk, fantasy, urban magicians, even Star Wars with FATE just fine.  It's a very robust element of that system of play.You're back to mechanical engines instead of play aesthetics.  Of course you can't play FATE with 5e -- the rules are different.  But you can grab some of those things FATE does aesthetically and do them in 5e without contorting the system or kitbashing.  I know this because I do it.  I gave an example.  Is it as good at evoking aspects as FATE is?  No, which I also said.  But, it does it, and I do it because it adds to my games.  Having a player leverage a trait or background in an action declaration is awesome, and I like having that done.  When I tempt a player with a flaw, that's great, too.  However, at the end of the day, I still like D&D because we use a more tactical combat system to kill the orcs than FATE does, and that's what we play D&D for.  I like being able to use the rules to evoke aspects of the players, but it's not the focus.  When we want that as the focus, we'll play FATE. Just as you do because that's what you want.  I'm not saying 5e is the uber-system, it's not, at all, but it can do a few things you're not giving credit for.  And that credit isn't acknowledgement that 5e is bestest, just that it has some built in features that do some things you're not acknowledging.  FATE is still the boss at aspect leveraging, but 5e dabbles.  What I am saying is that 5e is a broad and shallow system -- it does many things, but few (almost none) well, and certainly in any given focus there's a system out there than does it better (you don't even have to look far, quite often).  But, 5e is often surprising flexible, if not very strong.  The best thing that D&D does is be D&D.</blockquote>

Verification