• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

PF Wizkids should take the Pathfinder 1.0 ruleset and publish their own RPG.

Aldarc

Adventurer
And, yes, D&D can do anything, just as Traveller or Story Teller can do anything. Mechanics are not a limit on play.
If mechanics are not a limit on play, then why did so many D&D players claim otherwise about 4e? Or why do we need more mechanical support for D&D 5e? :unsure: (And to be clear here: we need not limit ourselves to just 4e in a hobby rife of such examples.)
 

Parmandur

Legend
If mechanics are not a limit on play, then why did so many D&D players claim otherwise about 4e? Or why do we need more mechanical support for D&D 5e? :unsure: (And to be clear here: we need not limit ourselves to just 4e in a hobby rife of such examples.)
4E's biggest issues were presentation and fluff, honestly: throw out the IP people loved, and make the books dry and technical, that's what you get.
 

Parmandur

Legend
@Parmandur i think some games do certain things better.

It would be interesting to have sales and play figures matched to 5es release.
Traveller does character creation better than most games: entirely not enough randomness in most RPG PC generation.

But in terms of genre and setting, once you have rules as a baseline, you can do it with any mechanics. There is a magical fantasy version of Traveller out there, and Ancient Rome Traveller.
 

Retreater

Adventurer
4E's biggest issues were presentation and fluff, honestly: throw out the IP people loved, and make the books dry and technical, that's what you get.
My group and I loved the edition of Gamma World based on the engine of 4E. In my opinion, it wasn't the system of 4E that was so bad, it was its departure from the expectations of D&D play.

At least what I noticed is that there was flavor and good settings in 4E. Also, there were flavor lines for every power and ability. They also used gamist language to describe the game in very specific terms - for better or worse this is one of the things most strongly remembered about that edition.
 

Parmandur

Legend
My group and I loved the edition of Gamma World based on the engine of 4E. In my opinion, it wasn't the system of 4E that was so bad, it was its departure from the expectations of D&D play.

At least what I noticed is that there was flavor and good settings in 4E. Also, there were flavor lines for every power and ability. They also used gamist language to describe the game in very specific terms - for better or worse this is one of the things most strongly remembered about that edition.
Yeah, exactly.
 

Retreater

Adventurer
So while we are not necessarily seeing one-for-one correspondences in the trend, I hope you can understand or be sympathetic to my worry about 5e's effect on the creative diversity in the market.
I can understand that 5E has been a powerhouse in the popular culture and is going to influence a lot of other game design. I'm enjoying many other games and supporting a variety of systems including WHFRPG, Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, and Forbidden Lands (to name a few). I also picked up Pugmire (a 5E-based game with dogs) and Esper Genesis (a 5E-based sci-fi game).

I recently lost two players out of my gaming group (out of 5, which basically ended my campaign) because we weren't playing 5E and they wanted that over Savage Worlds. We'll be okay, because in the end I'm DMing what I want to DM, and I need to get away from D&D for a bit.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Traveller does character creation better than most games: entirely not enough randomness in most RPG PC generation.

But in terms of genre and setting, once you have rules as a baseline, you can do it with any mechanics. There is a magical fantasy version of Traveller out there, and Ancient Rome Traveller.
This argument seems to come from a shallow, one-dimensional sense of "D&D can do everything" that sees "everything" only in terms of color or setting rather than how the mechanics actually impact play and cultivate the play experience. It's a bit ridiculous. It's almost like saying that Monopoly can do anything just because there are different versions that reskin the board and play pieces: e.g., World of Warcraft Monopoly, Golden Girls Monopoly, Star Wars Monopoly, Disney Princess Monopoly, etc. At a certain point, you have to realize that your game is not doing everything: it's just doing Monopoly.

So let us take the example of Ancient Rome. Just because we can slap a coat of Rome-colored paint on 5e does not mean that it can do everything. You are only establishing that it can do 5e-style Rome. But I cannot use 5e Rome to garner the same play experiences as I would from Ancient Rome Traveller, Ancient Rome Mythras, Ancient Rome CoC, Ancient Rome (whatever the FFG system is called), Ancient Rome Cypher, Ancient Rome Fate, Ancient Rome PbtA, or Ancient Rome Blades in the Dark. Because these games do things differently and will have different play experiences. The mechanics matter, and you cannot with any real sincerity tell me that 5e (or D&D) can do everything.

On other forums, such as RPG.net, you will get a lot of people who recommend using Fate to run their games. However, even one of the creators of Fate, Rob Donoghue had enough humility about his own system that he co-created to say that Fate is not good for everything nor should it be used for everything. Because he is aware of the limitations of Fate as an engine and toolkit. And yet why do so many people feel the need to be so hyper-defensive about what should not be a controversial statement: i.e., that D&D cannot do everything? Why the desperate need by some to defend the idea that D&D can do everything? What spurs that impulse?

Reading for entertainment, mainly. Idea mines.
Are you honestly arguing that the mechanics don't matter or impact play? o_O
 

Parmandur

Legend
This argument seems to come from a shallow, one-dimensional sense of "D&D can do everything" that sees "everything" only in terms of color or setting rather than how the mechanics actually impact play and cultivate the play experience. It's a bit ridiculous. It's almost like saying that Monopoly can do anything just because there are different versions that reskin the board and play pieces: e.g., World of Warcraft Monopoly, Golden Girls Monopoly, Star Wars Monopoly, Disney Princess Monopoly, etc. At a certain point, you have to realize that your game is not doing everything: it's just doing Monopoly.

So let us take the example of Ancient Rome. Just because we can slap a coat of Rome-colored paint on 5e does not mean that it can do everything. You are only establishing that it can do 5e-style Rome. But I cannot use 5e Rome to garner the same play experiences as I would from Ancient Rome Traveller, Ancient Rome Mythras, Ancient Rome CoC, Ancient Rome (whatever the FFG system is called), Ancient Rome Cypher, Ancient Rome Fate, Ancient Rome PbtA, or Ancient Rome Blades in the Dark. Because these games do things differently and will have different play experiences. The mechanics matter, and you cannot with any real sincerity tell me that 5e (or D&D) can do everything.

On other forums, such as RPG.net, you will get a lot of people who recommend using Fate to run their games. However, even one of the creators of Fate, Rob Donoghue had enough humility about his own system that he co-created to say that Fate is not good for everything nor should it be used for everything. Because he is aware of the limitations of Fate as an engine and toolkit. And yet why do so many people feel the need to be so hyper-defensive about what should not be a controversial statement: i.e., that D&D cannot do everything? Why the desperate need by some to defend the idea that D&D can do everything? What spurs that impulse?

Are you honestly arguing that the mechanics don't matter or impact play? o_O
People are a much, much larger impact than mechanics. Sure, mechanics can get in the way or not get in the way, but once they are working for everyone the interaction between people is what matters in an RPG.

5E is very, very good at not getting in the way of people playing whatever they wish. This is a big part of it's success.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I prefer thinking in terms of impacting play. For me a game that does not meaningfully "get in the way" is not doing us any service. I want a game that has something to say, that contributes something we would otherwise not get if we were just playing freeform.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I prefer thinking in terms of impacting play. For me a game that does not meaningfully "get in the way" is not doing us any service. I want a game that has something to say, that contributes something we would otherwise not get if we were just playing freeform.
That's what the action resolution adjudication offers. What form this takes is not terribly important, except insofar as it is fun and not too bothersome. Features that 5E has raised to a high form.
 

darjr

I crit!
I used to be this way. Now I find that it is to much work. What I want is a resolution system that can be easily ruled at the table. A simple Jenga Tower has been amazing, for instance, but I for go almost everything else Dread offers as rules.

Err: I was responding to a post about wanting rules that bring something neat or new to the game. But I can’t find it now.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I used to be this way. Now I find that it is to much work. What I want is a resolution system that can be easily ruled at the table. A simple Jenga Tower has been amazing, for instance, but I for go almost everything else Dread offers as rules.
I really, really like Mongoose's 2d6 system for Traveller, and FFG funny dice system, and PbtA system, and the DCC die chain...all rather elegant and fun approaches to doing the same thing.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
People are a much, much larger impact than mechanics. Sure, mechanics can get in the way or not get in the way, but once they are working for everyone the interaction between people is what matters in an RPG.

5E is very, very good at not getting in the way of people playing whatever they wish. This is a big part of it's success.
Would 5e have been anywhere as successful if it did not have the D&D brand and corporate marketing? If it had been just a 3pp fantasy heartbreaker? :unsure:

That's what the action resolution adjudication offers. What form this takes is not terribly important, except insofar as it is fun and not too bothersome. Features that 5E has raised to a high form.
Hey, look. It's not just "5e can do everything," now we have the assertion that 5e has raised action resolution adjudication to a "high form." I.e., 5e does all TTRPGs better.
And yet why do so many people feel the need to be so hyper-defensive about what should not be a controversial statement: i.e., that D&D cannot do everything? Why the desperate need by some to defend the idea that D&D can do everything? What spurs that impulse?
treat 5e as if it were the One-True-Way to TTRPG.
I'm sorry, @Parmandur, but it's difficult for me to not hear many of my problems and frustrations of the 5e D&D scene in your posts.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Would 5e have been anywhere as successful if it did not have the D&D brand and corporate marketing? If it had been just a 3pp fantasy heartbreaker? :unsure:

Hey, look. It's not just "5e can do everything," now we have the assertion that 5e has raised action resolution adjudication to a "high form." I.e., 5e does all TTRPGs better.
I'm sorry, @Parmandur, but it's difficult for me to not hear many of my problems and frustrations of the 5e D&D scene in your posts.
Sure, of course it wouldn't have been as successful without branding. That's obvious.

But it wouldn't have been as successful if WotC didn't spend years figuring out the best way to make a presentation that doesn't gum up the works at the table. See 4E, they didn't do that and had the branding angle and failed.

Mechanics are not of primary importance, but I will grant you that elegant and fun mechanics that don't burden players and DMs will be helpful for spreading the game in the open market, as we have seen.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
@Parmandur i think some games do certain things better.

It would be interesting to have sales and play figures matched to 5es release.
But is that 'better" enough for a player of D&D who is having fun playing and using D&D for their needs to invest money, time and energy in learning a new system, converting or finding new players as well as teaching them the new system... especially if their players are casual?
 

Maul

Explorer
How do you figure a company working in creating miniatures would know enough about rules?
And especially rules as complex as 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Thats why you hire writers who have worked with the system before. I'm saying that with the connections Wizkids has in the industry and the size of their company that they could financially back the project and get the right people to do it.
 

Advertisement

Top