Cook on Vancian magic in 5e

Marleycat · March 02, 2012, 10:31:31 PM

Quote from: Imp;518835Yeah, I would be very happy with a 5e that traded some but not all of the flexible building 3.x offers for ease of use, and so far it seems like that's exactly what they're doing, so it all looks pretty good to me. I just can't fuckin' play 3e anymore, it's too top-heavy and I'm tired of building every single thing out of legos.

I love 3e but I agree that's it's just too much work for me anymore given RL commitments. It's why I'm starting to get interested in OSRIC stuff, at least enough to give it a look. I definitely have issues with pre 3e stuff but with modern mechanics that lessens considerably, 5e seems to be going in a mix and match direction I so prefer. Like a Fantasy Craft built on 1e instead of 3e, big win for me.

RPGPundit · March 04, 2012, 03:41:19 PM

Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple. You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

thecasualoblivion · March 04, 2012, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;519299Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple. You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

estar · March 04, 2012, 06:19:35 PM

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

4e is a simple RPG that uses a exception based design. Which means that in order to emulate 4e for any class based system is to provide classes which are based on 4e style powers.

B.T. · March 05, 2012, 12:38:16 AM

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules.

Which is why 4e is shit.

jeff37923 · March 05, 2012, 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

A feature and not a bug if there ever was one.

Marleycat · March 05, 2012, 09:52:36 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;519299Thing is, its far easier to start with a simple system and then add complex modularity to it, than to start with a complex system and then try to strip it down to what's simple. You can try to simplify 3e or 4e, for example, but since so many powers, feats etc, depend on complex rules, you can't just get rid of those rules without revising tons of those feats and powers (or eliminating them entirely).

5e, if its done right, will start from what's simple, so that then you can add only those complex rules you want.

RPGPundit

I fervently hope that is what they do because I believe in this 100%, everything is always better the more simple it can be kept.

RPGPundit · March 05, 2012, 10:20:39 AM

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;519303That is only true if the complex modularity is indeed added. If the optional rules do not exist, its more hassle to create them yourself from scratch than it is to remove exiting rules. It is easier, for example, to cut out things from 3E to make something resembling AD&D than it is to build 4E out of AD&D from scratch. The quality of the modularity is also an issue. If the modulariy is on par with what we got from 2E skills and powers or many of the clunky optional rules from 3.5E, it causes more problems than it solves.

What worries me as a 4E player is that rules for generating a 4E style game won't exist at all, or won't exist in a satisfactory form.

Well, I certainly hope you get the modularity to feel like it works for you. Obviously, its not my priority to fight for that, and I'm way more concerned by hapless writers who've been doing nothing but 4e for years, not being able to simplify their way out of a wet paper bag. So I'm a bit too busy fighting a battle to make sure the core is Old School enough and free of 4e-style junk in the Core, I really don't have time to make sure they also satisfy the 4e fan in the place they actually should be doing that, the sidelines.

RPGPundit