Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6544556" data-attributes="member: 6790260">More or less exactly my perspective on the matter. 4e was very simple--and also ported a lot of the complexity to the player side--if a DM took advantage of all the tools available, especially the Monster Builder. Yes, this meant paying for a subscription, but the tools were worth the money. Once we got the MM3-on-a-business-card, you didn't even really need the MB, except as inspiration for special abilities (and I'd hardly call that a need).5e simplifies a lot of different things than 4e simplified. It also plays faster and looser with a lot of things--DCs are just scaled by 5s, monster balance is substantially more approximate, class balance is substantially more approximate, etc. I see it as the difference between two numerical solutions to a problem: one has more inner workings but is more precise (like an RK4 approximation) while the other is less resource-intensive but also has wider error bars and higher sensitivity to things like step-size changes. Both work; both will get you comfortably close to the "correct" answer. One is just more...rigorous than the other, and with something as aesthetic and personal as gaming, not everyone wants rigor.Yeah, this is a concern of mine as well, if I ever get invited into a 5e game. I'm big on mechanical hooks and exploring a mechanical space. (For example, I love the fact that many races work in substantially different ways in the game Endless Legend--even bog-standard humans have special tricks.) I've played Dungeon World for a long time now, and playing in such a light system has sharpened my preference into hunger. I'm not sure 5e would prove satisfying, mechanically, in the long term. Just as you say, the narrative satisfaction would probably be just fine--but that's not defined by (though it might be informed by) what's written in the books.</blockquote>

Verification