Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8600519" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Could be.&nbsp; I'm only passingly familiar with 5e.But I am familiar with PF2e (which he included in his suggestion), and most of the Ancestries and the like are not complicated for the hell of it there, but to make the actual distinctions that are desired for their being separate to mean something.This is the general reaction I have to a lot of OSR and, honestly, lightweight games in the first place; at some point if you want distinctions to be anything but color, there has to be some mechanical overhead on that (or largely arbitrary GM management, which I know is considered a virtue in some parts of that sphere, but not to me).&nbsp; That doesn't mean a lot of games couldn't do a better job, at least in places, in how they arrange or explain things, but the idea that there's lots of pointless complication just doesn't seem to pass the sniff test from where I sit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8600519, member: 7026617"] Could be. I'm only passingly familiar with 5e. But I[I] am[/I] familiar with PF2e (which he included in his suggestion), and most of the Ancestries and the like are not complicated for the hell of it there, but to make the actual distinctions that are desired for their being separate to mean something. This is the general reaction I have to a lot of OSR and, honestly, lightweight games in the first place; at some point if you want distinctions to be anything but color, there has to be some mechanical overhead on that (or largely arbitrary GM management, which I know is considered a virtue in some parts of that sphere, but not to me). That doesn't mean a lot of games couldn't do a better job, at least in places, in how they arrange or explain things, but the idea that there's lots of pointless complication just doesn't seem to pass the sniff test from where I sit. [/QUOTE]

Verification