Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why not Alternity? (Or, will or how might WotC do SF?)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8291472" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>I think wotc built 5e according to player feedback and decades of experience, and they did it mostly right. (there are glaring weaknesses, like the advice in the DMG being largely useless) The lack of guidance is, i think, a result of running out of time to complete the core books. The "skimpy"* rules for social interaction is intentional, however, and an extremely good design decision. </p><p></p><p>The reason for this is that social interaction directly and actively benefits from being able to just set the rules aside, and only use them to determine how good a character is at a type of action, and resolve interactions the result of which are in doubt. IMO, combat does not benefit from that, and even "exploration" ie overcoming non-combat physical challenges should be less free-form than social interaction. I do think 5e crapped the bed a bit on exploration, simply in that it at least needs something like the structure of some downtime activities (which are run like very simple skill challenges with a clear and easily adjudicated ladder of success from total failure, through levels of mixed results, to complete success.) </p><p></p><p>I wouldn't want social interaction to have that, though, outside of very optional rules for groups that feel they need it, because social interaction can just be done at the table. Knowing that I need to make an Athletics check, a Perception Check, and an Acrobatics check, to parkour through and over the obstacles of a rooftop without falling or getting caught by someone pursuing me or giving them any clues as to my identity, gives me a rough model of what my character knows about the situation in front of them, just like the combat mechanics let me know what my warrior character knows about the battle she is facing. </p><p></p><p>I'd be fine with that level of mechanization <em>at the very most</em> for social interaction.</p><p></p><p>This is a contentious thread, but most threads on this forum are just people sharing experiences. Well, to be fair, I have a bout a dozen people ignored, so it's possible that even my own recent threads about treasure and magic items, and custom enemies, respectively, feature the same sort of comments and I'm just not seeing them. </p><p></p><p>I generally see less "knives out" action here than i do on reddit or twitter, but maybe rpg.net might have less argument and more discussion? I honestly don't know I stopped going there when an advice thread I started got hijacked and overrun by a couple of jerks insisting that my design goals were bad and I was an idiot for not renaming Umbramancy or Sombramancy (ie shadow magic) to "Umbrancy" or "Sombrancy" lol. Apperently gamers don't know what -mancy means? </p><p></p><p>Anyway, yeah, if your intent wasn't to suggest that other people just aren't familiar with other games and that's why they like dnd 5e, fair enough. It's possible that your comment was just very similar to comments made constantly by a handful of posters here, and I read it that way because of the similarity. If so, my apologies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8291472, member: 6704184"] I think wotc built 5e according to player feedback and decades of experience, and they did it mostly right. (there are glaring weaknesses, like the advice in the DMG being largely useless) The lack of guidance is, i think, a result of running out of time to complete the core books. The "skimpy"* rules for social interaction is intentional, however, and an extremely good design decision. The reason for this is that social interaction directly and actively benefits from being able to just set the rules aside, and only use them to determine how good a character is at a type of action, and resolve interactions the result of which are in doubt. IMO, combat does not benefit from that, and even "exploration" ie overcoming non-combat physical challenges should be less free-form than social interaction. I do think 5e crapped the bed a bit on exploration, simply in that it at least needs something like the structure of some downtime activities (which are run like very simple skill challenges with a clear and easily adjudicated ladder of success from total failure, through levels of mixed results, to complete success.) I wouldn't want social interaction to have that, though, outside of very optional rules for groups that feel they need it, because social interaction can just be done at the table. Knowing that I need to make an Athletics check, a Perception Check, and an Acrobatics check, to parkour through and over the obstacles of a rooftop without falling or getting caught by someone pursuing me or giving them any clues as to my identity, gives me a rough model of what my character knows about the situation in front of them, just like the combat mechanics let me know what my warrior character knows about the battle she is facing. I'd be fine with that level of mechanization [I]at the very most[/I] for social interaction. This is a contentious thread, but most threads on this forum are just people sharing experiences. Well, to be fair, I have a bout a dozen people ignored, so it's possible that even my own recent threads about treasure and magic items, and custom enemies, respectively, feature the same sort of comments and I'm just not seeing them. I generally see less "knives out" action here than i do on reddit or twitter, but maybe rpg.net might have less argument and more discussion? I honestly don't know I stopped going there when an advice thread I started got hijacked and overrun by a couple of jerks insisting that my design goals were bad and I was an idiot for not renaming Umbramancy or Sombramancy (ie shadow magic) to "Umbrancy" or "Sombrancy" lol. Apperently gamers don't know what -mancy means? Anyway, yeah, if your intent wasn't to suggest that other people just aren't familiar with other games and that's why they like dnd 5e, fair enough. It's possible that your comment was just very similar to comments made constantly by a handful of posters here, and I read it that way because of the similarity. If so, my apologies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why not Alternity? (Or, will or how might WotC do SF?)
Top