Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayOfTheFourElements" data-source="post: 7908189" data-attributes="member: 6904757">I'm not really talking about 5e D&amp;D - I've only played a few sessions of that version. I usually play BX D&amp;D. I like that BX provides almost nothing in the way of non-combat mechanics so my players and I can play all of those things out using dialogue and negotiation. I only really need mechanics for spells, combat, monsters, and special abilities. Everything else can handled by ability scores and common sense.I'm not really sure how Fate can &quot;do anything&quot; - at least not with the system as written. When I look at it, I see I system that lacks tools. It's like the a toolbox with many different empty compartments. It can't do anything (that I'm interested in) that BX can't already accomplish, and requires a lot more work to do so.With regards to PbtA, the fact that it needs so many different versions of the game demonstrates how inflexible each game really is. BX can do swords and sorcery, high fantasy, pirates, horror, intrigue, war, etc. all inside of two 64-page booklets. It gives me what I need and nothing else - nor does it require me to build my own game system. PbtA, on the other hands, seems to require a different game for each of those genres. Maybe I'm missing something, though. Who knows.My whole argument isn't about theme. It's about the interaction between theme and mechanics. Fate probably does theme well, but the mechanics are clunky and get in the way (at least in my experience). When I first read Fate, I thought it was great, but after playing it, I found it awkward. The narrative always seemed to be at odds with the mechanics. Maybe I was doing it wrong. I don't know. But in BX I get concrete rules for things like combat and magic - and little else. Which for me, is perfect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayOfTheFourElements, post: 7908189, member: 6904757"] I'm not really talking about 5e D&D - I've only played a few sessions of that version. I usually play BX D&D. I like that BX provides almost nothing in the way of non-combat mechanics so my players and I can play all of those things out using dialogue and negotiation. I only really need mechanics for spells, combat, monsters, and special abilities. Everything else can handled by ability scores and common sense. I'm not really sure how Fate can "do anything" - at least not with the system as written. When I look at it, I see I system that lacks tools. It's like the a toolbox with many different empty compartments. It can't do anything (that I'm interested in) that BX can't already accomplish, and requires a lot more work to do so. With regards to PbtA, the fact that it needs so many different versions of the game demonstrates how inflexible each game really is. BX can do swords and sorcery, high fantasy, pirates, horror, intrigue, war, etc. all inside of two 64-page booklets. It gives me what I need and nothing else - nor does it require me to build my own game system. PbtA, on the other hands, seems to require a different game for each of those genres. Maybe I'm missing something, though. Who knows. My whole argument isn't about theme. It's about the interaction between theme and mechanics. Fate probably does theme well, but the mechanics are clunky and get in the way (at least in my experience). When I first read Fate, I thought it was great, but after playing it, I found it awkward. The narrative always seemed to be at odds with the mechanics. Maybe I was doing it wrong. I don't know. But in BX I get concrete rules for things like combat and magic - and little else. Which for me, is perfect. [/QUOTE]

Verification