Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6649757" data-attributes="member: 82106">The funny thing is, go read the "what was your favorite thing about 4e" thread. In that thread there's a poster, JamesonCourage, who simply flat out told us that 4e was flawed because it didn't empower players due to its rules being far too loose and not covering all situations. And then literally declared that his own homebrew contains mechanics by which a player can derive the DC and resolve all other relevant questions for ANY POSSIBLE situation, objectively. He expounded over many pages as to how this was vastly superior to 4e (and I would assume he would have a roughly similar opinion of 5e for basically the same reasons, though I don't particularly remember that we touched on it, he did have similar issues with 3e too). I only bring this up to illustrate the VAST range of possibilities and tastes in terms of what the game should provide. I think 4e's structure was ideal for many of us. Its quick, relatively concise, and provides answers geared towards the most relevant question at the table, what numbers should I use to get successful results given the PCs and level of challenge in play NOW. It is in a sense a 'fiction generator' as opposed to a 'fiction arbitrator', and for a lot of the less plot-central aspects of a given game that's probably for the best. I don't want to have to decide how big the boulder is that I just invented because the PCs asked if the crumbling cliff has boulders, which it logically would even though it wasn't a detail I thought of yesterday when I created said cliff. In 4e the answer can be "yup, there's a boulder, drop it on the bad guys for high limited damage" and I know if its level 1 they're able to drop a small chunk of rock, and if they're level 30 they can drop a house-sized rock. So my skill becomes the skill of storytelling, creating fiction that works to go along with mechanics that work. Now, if something is central to the plot, then it can be decided ahead of time, I can do whatever. If one of the three ways to seal the Cave of Desire is to drop a huge rock on it from above, and its a level 1 scenario, then by gosh the level 1 PCs can drop said rock (maybe after jumping through the correct hoops). If it happens to do 100 damage to anyone below it, oh well, its just how the scenario plays out, they die. 5e in contrast would want you to try to invent some aspect of the world based on no criteria that is part of the game, just purely "what you feel like", so the size of the boulder could be anything, regardless of what level the PCs are. In effect it will be a size that makes the game work out the way the GM envisaged it. I'm seeing a very definite tendency in our 5e DM to play it this way. Its a bit railroady TBH. If we look for a boulder to drop on the bad guys to turn the big encounter easy, it happens to be too big to move. I mean in 4e you could just say "nope, no boulders!" too, or you COULD say "its too big to move, DC 42", but the game actively discourages that.</blockquote>

Verification