Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6648936" data-attributes="member: 996">'Good' depends on what you're evaluating.&nbsp; If 'good' is Tier 1 caster dominance in play, sure, 3e did a 'better' job of presenting a range of spell-casting strategies than 5e, and 5e is, indeed, not on the same level - yet.&nbsp; OTOH, if 'good' is balanced classes that don't relegate a whole swath of typical heroic fantasy archetypes to irrelevance, then 3e was terrible, and 5e isn't as bad - yet.&nbsp;And, yes, you have fewer explicit options in 5e by default, mainly due to the insistence on TotM as the default mode of play.&nbsp; But, there is a tactical module that adds a little granularity, opening up the possibility of more options.&nbsp; But, the biggest culprit in failing to capture the range of fighter options and builds possible in 3e is 5e's heavy emphasis on DPR as the fighter's (and berserker's) only significant contribution - and, to an only lesser extent, the same goes for the two no-casting Rogue sub-classes, as well, being DPR-only in combat, but having some non-trivial non-combat contributions, as well.Another difference is community attitude.&nbsp; The 3.x era had a reverence for &quot;the RAW&quot; that was positively problematic for the DM.&nbsp; While the system gave characters a lot of build options, combat options, skill options, &amp;c, the DM was discouraged from modding or adding to those options by the overemphasis on RAW.&nbsp; In 5e, OTOH, the community has, so far, been willing to accept 5e's professed DM empowerment, so even though 5e might present far fewer options, to players, than 3.x, it presents the DM with one very powerful option, that the community has not balked at:&nbsp; adding new options (whether formal house rules or off-the-cuff rulings) for the players, himself.&nbsp;Agreed.&nbsp;The option isn't 'do anything you want' it's 'make something up,' and it's a DM option.The point is that it's an option that is present in absolutely every RPG, and that cannot be removed or curtailed.So when you say &quot;Game A has far fewer options than Game B, but in Game A you can 'do anything,&quot; all you've really said is that Game B has more options than Game A, because you can always 'do anything,' in either game - and indeed, any RPG.Where the 'less is more' koan applies to RPGs is in regards to balanced choices.&nbsp; If Game A has fewer choices than Game B, but one of the choices in Game B is flatly superior to all the others, Game A has more viable/meaningful/'real' choices than Game B.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6648936, member: 996"] 'Good' depends on what you're evaluating. If 'good' is Tier 1 caster dominance in play, sure, 3e did a 'better' job of presenting a range of spell-casting strategies than 5e, and 5e is, indeed, not on the same level - yet. OTOH, if 'good' is balanced classes that don't relegate a whole swath of typical heroic fantasy archetypes to irrelevance, then 3e was terrible, and 5e isn't as bad - yet. And, yes, you have fewer explicit options in 5e by default, mainly due to the insistence on TotM as the default mode of play. But, there is a tactical module that adds a little granularity, opening up the possibility of more options. But, the biggest culprit in failing to capture the range of fighter options and builds possible in 3e is 5e's heavy emphasis on DPR as the fighter's (and berserker's) only significant contribution - and, to an only lesser extent, the same goes for the two no-casting Rogue sub-classes, as well, being DPR-only in combat, but having some non-trivial non-combat contributions, as well. Another difference is community attitude. The 3.x era had a reverence for "the RAW" that was positively problematic for the DM. While the system gave characters a lot of build options, combat options, skill options, &c, the DM was discouraged from modding or adding to those options by the overemphasis on RAW. In 5e, OTOH, the community has, so far, been willing to accept 5e's professed DM empowerment, so even though 5e might present far fewer options, to players, than 3.x, it presents the DM with one very powerful option, that the community has not balked at: adding new options (whether formal house rules or off-the-cuff rulings) for the players, himself. Agreed. The option isn't 'do anything you want' it's 'make something up,' and it's a DM option. The point is that it's an option that is present in absolutely every RPG, and that cannot be removed or curtailed. So when you say "Game A has far fewer options than Game B, but in Game A you can 'do anything," all you've really said is that Game B has more options than Game A, because you can always 'do anything,' in either game - and indeed, any RPG. Where the 'less is more' koan applies to RPGs is in regards to balanced choices. If Game A has fewer choices than Game B, but one of the choices in Game B is flatly superior to all the others, Game A has more viable/meaningful/'real' choices than Game B. [/QUOTE]

Verification