Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6202169" data-attributes="member: 40233">Currently the tactical &quot;depth&quot; of 4e isn't there yet; by which I mean the array of game options a player has to choose from in a given round.&nbsp; There are decision points-but they are generally on the level of 1 or 2 an encounter, rather than one each round.&nbsp; Of course, there are still the meta-fictional decision points, like whether to engage, what weapons to use, etc.&nbsp; which are actually more important in 5e because characters aren't built to only do one thing well (as in, fighters can actually excel at an array of different combat styles, etc).As to your contention &quot;simulation over imagination&quot;, 5e has gone the exact opposite direction, and has adopted a &quot;fiction first&quot; emphasis, where the story is the important thing and the rules try to support that.&nbsp; There should be less work for the DM or player in explaining how the gelatinous cube could be &quot;prone&quot;, for instance.Currently we haven't seen too many of the optional rules, but the idea is that aside from a core element, the whole game will be optional rules modules.&nbsp; So here's hoping.Great analogy!&nbsp; Personally, I think 5e has that.&nbsp; Simple, flexible core, allowing wide array of options.&nbsp; For instance, with the background system, I've been able to make exactly the kind of characters I want to play, even before the multiclassing rules were released.Currently there's not a huge amount of support for miniatures play, but I did watch the 5e teams Slave Lords play through and the climax fight was done with mini's and included some interesting set pieces.&nbsp; We haven't seen what it looks like in the playtest document though.5e does this better than any edition of D&amp;D prior to this, except for that version you played at 12 years old when you didn't know the rules and thus everything was &quot;magical&quot;.I'm really loving the exploration rules module, and the interaction rules look really solid too.&nbsp; They're simple enough to handle things at a really high level, but you can also get into the nitty gritty if you want.&nbsp; Good stuff; probably the best development of 5e.OK, it's hard to determine &quot;tone&quot; from a playtest document, but I think 5e hits this myself.&nbsp; I've run a lot of old school modules with it and it does that great, possibly better than old school (thanks to the streamlined exploration mechanics).&nbsp; Of course, it's missing the weird art, and abstruse sentence structure of AD&amp;D; again, it's a playtest document.Pretty much with the rules as written, I feel like I can do a variety of styles, but the rules definitely lend themselves best to 1/2e style &quot;classic&quot; D&amp;D to me.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can see the potential for rules modules that lend themselves to other styles of play, but of course, we haven't seen those yet.Anyways, there's my responses.&nbsp; I think, on balance, with the understanding that it is an incomplete ruleset, you'll think it's fun.&nbsp; Hope this response helps!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6202169, member: 40233"] Currently the tactical "depth" of 4e isn't there yet; by which I mean the array of game options a player has to choose from in a given round. There are decision points-but they are generally on the level of 1 or 2 an encounter, rather than one each round. Of course, there are still the meta-fictional decision points, like whether to engage, what weapons to use, etc. which are actually more important in 5e because characters aren't built to only do one thing well (as in, fighters can actually excel at an array of different combat styles, etc). As to your contention "simulation over imagination", 5e has gone the exact opposite direction, and has adopted a "fiction first" emphasis, where the story is the important thing and the rules try to support that. There should be less work for the DM or player in explaining how the gelatinous cube could be "prone", for instance. Currently we haven't seen too many of the optional rules, but the idea is that aside from a core element, the whole game will be optional rules modules. So here's hoping. Great analogy! Personally, I think 5e has that. Simple, flexible core, allowing wide array of options. For instance, with the background system, I've been able to make exactly the kind of characters I want to play, even before the multiclassing rules were released. Currently there's not a huge amount of support for miniatures play, but I did watch the 5e teams Slave Lords play through and the climax fight was done with mini's and included some interesting set pieces. We haven't seen what it looks like in the playtest document though. 5e does this better than any edition of D&D prior to this, except for that version you played at 12 years old when you didn't know the rules and thus everything was "magical". I'm really loving the exploration rules module, and the interaction rules look really solid too. They're simple enough to handle things at a really high level, but you can also get into the nitty gritty if you want. Good stuff; probably the best development of 5e. OK, it's hard to determine "tone" from a playtest document, but I think 5e hits this myself. I've run a lot of old school modules with it and it does that great, possibly better than old school (thanks to the streamlined exploration mechanics). Of course, it's missing the weird art, and abstruse sentence structure of AD&D; again, it's a playtest document. Pretty much with the rules as written, I feel like I can do a variety of styles, but the rules definitely lend themselves best to 1/2e style "classic" D&D to me. I can see the potential for rules modules that lend themselves to other styles of play, but of course, we haven't seen those yet. Anyways, there's my responses. I think, on balance, with the understanding that it is an incomplete ruleset, you'll think it's fun. Hope this response helps! [/QUOTE]

Verification