Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034760Yeah, this is a binary.  Either you fear change, or you don't.  And most humans don't.  Thing is, it's still, ironically, not an all or nothing thing it's degrees of 'fear', dislike is after all, is an expression of this fear.

ok sure yeah lol

Change is stress. Humans have a tendency to react poorly to change they dislike due to this stress.  Gamers are (probably) humans.  Gamers have a tendency to react poorly to change they dislike.  The intensity of this varies.

Quote from: Teodrik;1034706The problem with the term culture in the context of Middle-Earth is that the difference between an hobbit and noldor elf is far more than that.

So, ancestry is a better distinction than culture? Apples and oranges.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034760This is what killed 4e.  And it started before 4e even came out.  People were hating because it was rumoured to be different.



And it was so bad for you and your crew apparently that you had to stay away for 5 years to get that 'bad taste' out of your 'mouth'.

We thought the system looked pretty neat, but only heard terrible things about it. Years later most the people who actually played said they liked it.

Honestly, I would play anything not 5e. I'm not super thrilled about playing 4e, but facing down the prospect of another 5e trainwreck of a campaign, I'm thrilled at the idea of trying out 4e. It's like a breathe of fresh air. And I say that as a big fan of the very different RC/BECMI D&D. Not being 5e is a huge selling point of any system. I'd sooner play a freeform narrative game where every conflict resolution was decided by playing a game of Monopoly.

Surprisingly, the most common comparison I am seeing at the Paizo PF2 playtest forum is to 4e. A notable number of people are comparing PF2 to 4e, or 4e with a few 5e'isms tossed in.

Quote from: Mistwell;1034786Surprisingly, the most common comparison I am seeing at the Paizo PF2 playtest forum is to 4e. A notable number of people are comparing PF2 to 4e, or 4e with a few 5e'isms tossed in.

Honest question:  Are they positive or negative comparisons?

I'm not going to Paizo's forum, because the last I was there, it was a terrible system and I could barely understand how it worked.  I'm talking their forum software.

Whatever happened to "the burden of proof rests with the affirmative?"  If somebody wants my money for another edition of D&D, they have to prove to my satisfaction that the gain will be worth the expenditure.  I do not have to make a case for why I do NOT spend my money.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1034781Honestly, I would play anything not 5e. I'm not super thrilled about playing 4e, but facing down the prospect of another 5e trainwreck of a campaign, I'm thrilled at the idea of trying out 4e. It's like a breathe of fresh air. And I say that as a big fan of the very different RC/BECMI D&D. Not being 5e is a huge selling point of any system. I'd sooner play a freeform narrative game where every conflict resolution was decided by playing a game of Monopoly.

Are there actual mechanical problems with 5e you find, or is this an issue with the published 5e campaigns?

[QUwOTE=Robyo;1034777]So, ancestry is a better distinction than culture? Apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. Ancestry would be much more appropriate and makes sense. But it is not interchangeable with culture. To differentiate a townsman from Lake Town and Woodsmen, sure, you could say culture. But it is not applicable when dealing with different creatures of men, elves, dwarves and hobbits. And it sound really lame.

Quote from: Robyo;1034777So, ancestry is a better distinction than culture? Apples and oranges.

Yes and no. Ancestry makes sense. But it is not interchangeable with culture. To differentiate a townsman from Lake Town and Woodsmen, sure, you could say culture. But it is not applicable when dealing with different creatures of men, elves, dwarves and hobbits. And it sounds really lame.

Quote from: S'mon;1034821Are there actual mechanical problems with 5e you find, or is this an issue with the published 5e campaigns?

An easier question is more the mechanical problems I don't have with 5e.

In order my problems:
1. Baked in encounter pacing into the balance assumptions that is but flexible at all with a large group.

2. Combat still takes forever. Oh sure rounds are shorter than 3.5/PF but you have more rounds per combat.

3. Various balance problems (spells, feats, class features) where PCs end up too strong in comparison to...

4. ...the sorry sacks of HP that are this edition's excuse for monsters and many of their problems stem from...

5. ...a terrible skill system that is both mechanically complex but focuses on rules light rulings rather than actual rules for setting DCs, making conflict resolution "DM picks undefined number from hat" rather than "consult table" or "consult DM".
The skills themselves are worded rather poorly in comparison to any other game I've played or even older editions like RC / BECMI D&D.


When I sit down to the prospect of making a 5e character, there is nothing I want to make because I don't have fun with any of these mechanics in the context of the system. Maybe 5e would seem nice in isolation of non D&D games and if literally every other RPG home brew or otherwise was somehow enforcibly illegal, I would probably find myself playing 5e rather than no ttRPGs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034808Whatever happened to "the burden of proof rests with the affirmative?"  If somebody wants my money for another edition of D&D, they have to prove to my satisfaction that the gain will be worth the expenditure.  I do not have to make a case for why I do NOT spend my money.

Nope. We owe allegiance to corporations and if we don't like the widgets they are trying to sell us we just are afraid of change.

D&D is much more akin to a tool or a piece of furniture to me. If my lazy boy still works and is comfortable why do I need to buy a new one?

Quote from: Teodrik;1034837Yes and no. Ancestry makes sense. But it is not interchangeable with culture. To differentiate a townsman from Lake Town and Woodsmen, sure, you could say culture. But it is not applicable when dealing with different creatures of men, elves, dwarves and hobbits. And it sounds really lame.

Ancestry sounds really lame to me.

Quote from: Teodrik;1034837Yes and no. Ancestry makes sense. But it is not interchangeable with culture. To differentiate a townsman from Lake Town and Woodsmen, sure, you could say culture. But it is not applicable when dealing with different creatures of men, elves, dwarves and hobbits. And it sounds really lame.

Why not use species then? Humans are the same species and have different ancestries. Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, and Men are not the same species.

Culture and ancestry overlap a whole lot prior to the advent of mass transportation and high demographic churn of postmodern society.