Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2020, 09:31:38 AM
'Nobody cares for your anecdotal evidence! They care for MY anecdotal evidence!'

The vast numbers of measurable 5E players disagree. Even if we only take those who only play 5E it's already many more than for any other system. Try harder.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 28, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Nobody cares what you have heard. We're not talking rpgsite members or grognards here, but the general gaming crowd.

And you, obviously, speak for the general gaming crowd. [/sarcasm]


It's funny you think I'm some grognard or getting my opinions from here. I loathe OSR-style games and my favorite edition of D&D is 4E (I acknowledge it had its issues, but it's the first version I was ever able to make PCs I enjoyed without the system fighting me).


No, "everyone's 2nd favorite" is the general sentiment about 5e on the ground in my hometown. It's why I've been able to get a fairly broad spectrum of play testers for my own system (ranging from early teens through late 40s); There is no rabid attachment to 5e so offering up another system to try out for a session is a fairly easy sell.

While 5E is not my favorite version of D&D. I do kind of agree Nerzenjager that it is for the moment anyway the most popular edition of D&D.


So much so that Paizo who build a 3.5 clone to draw in unhappy 4E players decided to make a 2E of their rpg and borrow some elements. from it. Even if it meant alienating the 1E PF fanbase.


Just because it's not played in your neck of the woods does not mean it's not popular. By that logic I played in a short term Rifts campaing using Discord well that means Rifts is popular then. It's not only a matter of a gaming table or town it's a large segment of the fanbase. When it comes to D&D it may not be the most popular versions it's probably damn close.

5E is so popular that even 3PP who were publishing material for 1E PF have switched over to 5E for the most part.

As for speaking for the general gaming crowd some gamers who prefer one edition of a certain rpg tend to lose total objectivity, then tend to just ignore anything that goes their carefully constructed personal narratives because of "reasons and feels". I am no huge fan of 5E by any means and will stick to playing PF 1E to claim that 5E is not popular is just not wanting to admit they could be wrong. Whatever your smoking I don't want it.

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

No, proneness is irrelevant when you're blind. I had the same distaste for lack of nuance in the case of multiple advantage/disadvantage conditions until I used the mechanic for a while. Here's the thing: I found that adjustments for such nuance did not create materially different outcomes. And a single yes/no is easier and faster. So if your purpose is emulation of an "advantage" from the character's point of view, I find the mechanic works awesomely. If your goal is to provide an obvious mathematical advantage as, say, a dopamine reward for the clever player, then I would agree that something more nuanced might work better. Personally, my goal is the former, and I find the latter distracting to it.

Quote from: sureshot on September 28, 2020, 10:11:15 AM
While 5E is not my favorite version of D&D. I do kind of agree Nerzenjager that it is for the moment anyway the most popular edition of D&D.

Not saying its not popular.

Quote from: Zalman on September 28, 2020, 10:12:25 AMSo if you're purpose is emulation of an "advantage" from the character's point of view

Then stacking advantage is a thing human beings have been doing for all of history for all time. The execution of the advantage/disadvantage system actively discourages planning ahead or stacking the environment in your favor.
Again I played 5e for a 6 month campaign with good friends and a good GM. We where largely unimpressed in the end.


While I don't super need hyper complex in depth rules measuring my impact weapon by square inch of weight and compared to a body chart with 300 locations, I do like knowing what I can or can't do, and what I can develop to do more in character. I don't need a ton but I need SOMETHING.


I found Sine Nominee does this sort of thing really well. Like I like playing giant stompy characters. In 5e that maxes out at advantage for STR, and what that means in terms of what I can smash and what I can do largely depends on the GMs whims with no support or help for them to make decisions. Which if it keeps happening slows down the game (or turns it into a drama slam). While Godbound makes being a big o dragon both mechanically simple, but really satisfying.

5E could be ground-breaking in retrospect, but won't be.  It could be if WotC went to design 6E with the idea that 5E gets some things right but also is off in a few places and lacking in implementation and follow through in a lot of places.  (That is, 5E isn't nearly as good a game as it could have been even stuck with its design mistakes.)

Such a 6E would be largely compatible with 5E--not entirely, but close enough to not invalidate most 5E adventures and campaigns.  Unfortunately, there is zero evidence that WotC understands their own game well enough to pull that off.  So what they are going to do is either too little (not the worse outcome considering), too much (throw out the good parts and start over with a bunch of new mistakes), or the wrong things (woke crap and trying to extend their streak of continuous marketing fails).     

My current bet is they'll change enough stuff to make 5E adventures not entirely useful (at least mechanically), but not fix anything.  But then, I expect to be off that treadmill anyway.

Products like Xanathar's and Tasha's indicate that they might be taking the modularity approach they touted in the playtest and that they're going with incremental tweaks that don't invalidate all your previous products.  It just might mean that the organized play rule becomes PHB/XGtE/Tasha's+1 instead of PHB+1 for character building.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2020, 10:35:48 AM
I do like knowing what I can or can't do

Ah, we differ there. I prefer to invent things to do based on each particular situation, without any pre-determination of the available "moves" for my character. It certainly sounds like you prefer the player-centric model, rewarding good decisions with dice bonuses.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 28, 2020, 09:33:35 AMThe vast numbers of measurable 5E players disagree. Even if we only take those who only play 5E it's already many more than for any other system. Try harder.

Are there measurable numbers of 5e players? The only data I've seen is worded in such a way as to include people that don't actually play the game. I will agree that it is currently the most played system, but D&D has held that title for almost the entirety of it's life.

Quote from: Zalman on September 28, 2020, 11:02:48 AMAh, we differ there. I prefer to invent things to do based on each particular situation, without any pre-determination of the available "moves" for my character. It certainly sounds like you prefer the player-centric model, rewarding good decisions with dice bonuses.

Well not player centric but just logic centric to me. I actually mostly GM. However when I do play I use every single resource to my advantage. Not in a "Munchkin" sense where I get the Maxxorz numbers. But stuff like where I figured out how to turn a shrinking power into a immobilizing mud bomb. Which usually does prompt improvisation (and sighs at times) from the GM.


But as a GM I find if I just resolve everything add hock I feel dissatisfied. The less I feel my players understood what they could and couldn't do to get the scenario to their advantage, the more I feel I'm just playing with myself. I like to be surprised by player wit and ingenuity. Not in a munchkin sense but their creativity. And I feel that 5e just doesn't have a good framework for that.

Quote from: KingCheops on September 28, 2020, 11:00:19 AMProducts like Xanathar's and Tasha's indicate that they might be taking the modularity approach they touted in the playtest.

Napkin scribble side-rules is a far cry from the modularity they promised. Under that logic its about as modular as D&D 3e or Pathfinder.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2020, 12:33:00 PMNapkin scribble side-rules is a far cry from the modularity they promised. Under that logic its about as modular as D&D 3e or Pathfinder.

Yeah, the promised "tactical module" for 4E turned out to be vaporware. "Play like its any edition of D&D at the same table" was just market-speak to keep those who felt they were being thrown under the bus quiet until it was too late to change anything.

The lesson I took from that debacle (beyond, build your own not-5e system) was that genuine optional rules are a plus. I already mentioned my advantage/disadvantage testing moving static bonuses to the optional section, but another part of my process was to expressly identify edition differences and, where practical, add optional rules to make the system play more in that fashion.

Quote

Quote from: meAre you really unable to answer a simple question?

If the question is misconceived, then answering it takes the discussion further along the wrong track.So that would be a yes.

QuoteYou don't need the rules to tell you to stack positive mods for a character to be able to off a defenceless opponent.They just do it. Any ruleset is entitled to assume people will use their brain.

True. A working brain is a useful thing. Mine indicates that there situations somewhere in between (a) take the best of two rolls and (b) you automatically succeed. Yours, apparently, does not.EDIT: Damn it. Somehow the quotes disappeared. This new interface frustrates me. Must find a better way of composing and posting.Edit: Damn it. This interface is frustrating. It screws up something, I try to edit to fix it and that screws up something else. Must find a better way of composing and posting.

Quote from: Zalman on September 28, 2020, 10:12:25 AM

Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
So when you run things if the opponent is blind and prone they are automatically dead? Or is blindness irrelevant when prone?

No, proneness is irrelevant when you're blind. I had the same distaste for lack of nuance in the case of multiple advantage/disadvantage conditions until I used the mechanic for a while. Here's the thing: I found that adjustments for such nuance did not create materially different outcomes. And a single yes/no is easier and faster.

I don't agree with you that proneness is irrelevant (though it clearly is according to the RAW). But if I want fast and easy I'll toss a coin or roll a six-sided die and choose high/low or odd/even.

QuoteSo if your purpose is emulation of an "advantage" from the character's point of view, I find the mechanic works awesomely.

As a player, I don't. (And of course my clever characters find it unsatisfying that there is no advantage to using multiple advantageous tactics at one time and since he is unable to counter a single disadvantage with any number of advantageous tactics.)

QuoteIf your goal is to provide an obvious mathematical advantage as, say, a dopamine reward for the clever player, then I would agree that something more nuanced might work better. Personally, my goal is the former, and I find the latter distracting to it.

If your goal is a simplistic solution that satisfies players who are barely engaged or not too clever by giving them a dopamine reward without taxing their brains, than simple advantage/disadvantage works. (See I can play the ad hominem game too.)

I'm not the DM for 5E, so my dissatisfaction with the mechanic comes from playing D&D and finding that (due to the advantage mechanic) the system doesn't reward multiple advantageous cases, situations, or tactical maneuvers or overcome a single disadvantage. I accept that it isn't going to bother everyone. It doesn't often seem to bother most of my fellow players. And the DMs seem pretty happy simply following the rules as written.

Quote from: Bren on September 28, 2020, 02:56:10 PM

Quote from: Zalman on September 28, 2020, 10:12:25 AM
Here's the thing: I found that adjustments for such nuance did not create materially different outcomes. And a single yes/no is easier and faster.

I don't agree with you that proneness is irrelevant (though it clearly is according to the RAW). But if I want fast and easy I'll toss a coin or roll a six-sided die and choose high/low or odd/even.

Ah, but that would provide materially different results at the table, and that's the point. If someone has the better of their opponent because the opponent is blinded, that's nearly always definitive by itself, and not the 50/50 chance of your coin toss. Adding more advantage for "proneness" doesn't change that outcome frequently enough to be worried about (in my personal experience, perhaps never), and certainly not often enough to justify any increase in mechanical complexity for me.

Blindness alone shouldn't be equivalent to automatic death or even automatic critical hit on the target by any attacker--and it certainly isn't according to the rules of 5E. According to the rules the blinded character has disadvantage on attacks they make and any attacker has advantage attacking the blinded character. Rolling best (or worst) one out of two rolls is far from "nearly always definitive by itself."