Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 30, 2021, 04:34:15 PM
TBH, I find 5e has a great "skeleton" and I would change nothing major.

The skeleton and the basic resolution mechanic is where I think 5e fails the hardest. Its a OK idea, but its executed terribly.

In place of making characters feel distinct through basic skill proficiencies and saves, everything instead is super samey and depends on every class having buckets of minor negligible bonuses to hand out every level.
So your characters fundementally differ from one another very little on a base resolution level, but have tons of annoying fidgety abilities on top.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 04:42:27 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 30, 2021, 04:34:15 PM
TBH, I find 5e has a great "skeleton" and I would change nothing major.

The skeleton and the basic resolution mechanic is where I think 5e fails the hardest. Its a OK idea, but its executed terribly.

In place of making characters feel distinct through basic skill proficiencies and saves, everything instead is super samey and depends on every class having buckets of minor negligible bonuses to hand out every level.
So your characters fundementally differ from one another very little on a base resolution level, but have tons of annoying fidgety abilities on top.

Not sure we disagree, but I think we are using "skeleton" differently.

What I like in 5e is the d20+ability+proficiency; bounded accuracy is a good idea IMO; advantage/disadvantage is good; I like having a save for each stat, although I agree that the execution could be improved. Which part of the basic resolution mechanic you dislike?

I do agree that PCS "have tons of annoying fidgety abilities".

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 30, 2021, 05:08:19 PMWhat I like in 5e is the d20+ability+proficiency; bounded accuracy is a good idea IMO

Because bounded accuracy is a buzz word, what do you mean by that (it can mean many things for many people)?

Quoteadvantage/disadvantage is good

Its solid enough but its the only string to 5es bow and it gets overused massively. Once you get into even a mildly complex situation it becomes very flabby.

QuoteI like having a save for each stat

I like it in SW, I hate it in 5e. Its a OK enough Idea to streamline things to keep track of, but in practice it feels like you always have defenses you will always have +1 or +2 in which means you can die to random whatever effects very easily. We once all nearly had a TPK to the Brian devourer because of its instakill mind eat because only the wizard had int save bonuses (because thats baseline for the class). And I can't even say we 'over invested' or where lopsided in defense because the int save only comes up like 1% of the time.

I prefer the Stars Without number method which has 3 saves, and you pick between 2 stats for each of them.

QuoteWhich part of the basic resolution mechanic you dislike?

The miniscule scaling which means characters are about 25% different from each other at any single thing at most. Its also immensly swingy meaning random chance has way more say in success then your character.

Stars Without Number has even smaller numbers (Attributes+skills range up to a max of +6), but because its skill system is on a curve its objectively more meaningful, without having your skill checks being guarunteed, or needing massive modifers.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 12:36:25 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 12:32:11 PMWe'll have to agree to disagree then. In decades of GMing, I never had problems putting encounters together until I tried to use CR. YMMV, I guess.

I think CR is trash. I just think HD as somesort of measurement is just nothing. Saying 'Id rather use nothing as a measuring tool then CR' to be more accurate.

I don't know what to say to that. I used HD as a gauge for encounter difficulty, so I don't agree it's "nothing". I'm mostly confused.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 06:00:28 PMI don't know what to say to that. I used HD as a gauge for encounter difficulty, so I don't agree it's "nothing". I'm mostly confused.

To disengage my own hyperbole (and apologize for it): A monsters abilities and offenses generally is going to be a much better measure of their danger to PCs then their defenses in the form of HD.

HD suffers the same issue as CR because abilities and offenses are more important then defenses which is what they determine.

You are all wrong.

There is only one thing you need to remove from D&D...

... and that's WotC

Much of the girth of WOTC editions of D&D, comes from giving each PC a big laundry list of their "options & abilities"; because PCs like to be told what they can do, instead of role playing and growing their character through actual gameplay.  Is it WOTC's fault, or is it a modern generational gaming preference?  Or is it both?

Quote from: Krugus on December 30, 2021, 06:35:13 PM
You are all wrong.

There is only one thing you need to remove from D&D...

... and that's WotC

I agree with that. The question is, who would generic "you" pick to inherit D&D?

I would have said Goodman Games, but... 

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 30, 2021, 07:14:07 PM
Much of the girth of WOTC editions of D&D, comes from giving each PC a big laundry list of their "options & abilities"; because PCs like to be told what they can do, instead of role playing and growing their character through actual gameplay.  Is it WOTC's fault, or is it a modern generational gaming preference?  Or is it both?

Later editions of RPGs almost always have an ever-growing list of options and abilities. You can see that trend back in the 1980s and 1990s - looking at almost any game line with many editions, from GURPS to Ars Magica to Shadowrun and others. Later editions get more bloated and full of bells and whistles. I think if anything, 5E D&D has done better in resisting bloat than most other late editions.

Expanding options and abilities in D&D started accelerating particularly in the 2E era with the various kit expansions.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 07:17:29 PM

Quote from: Krugus on December 30, 2021, 06:35:13 PM
You are all wrong.

There is only one thing you need to remove from D&D...

... and that's WotC

I agree with that. The question is, who would generic "you" pick to inherit D&D?

I would have said Goodman Games, but... 

  Troll Lord Games seems reliable and full of affection for the grand old game, and maybe the influx of cash would allow them to hire some more editors.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 30, 2021, 06:04:04 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 06:00:28 PMI don't know what to say to that. I used HD as a gauge for encounter difficulty, so I don't agree it's "nothing". I'm mostly confused.

To disengage my own hyperbole (and apologize for it): A monsters abilities and offenses generally is going to be a much better measure of their danger to PCs then their defenses in the form of HD.

HD suffers the same issue as CR because abilities and offenses are more important then defenses which is what they determine.

Ah, ok. Yeah, I agree. I think HD is a better rough estimate, but you still have to pay attention to damage output and special abilities.

Overall I find that I like 5E more than I dislike it, which is good because it's my gaming group's go-to rules set.

I have a couple of things I would tinker with:

(1) Combats take too long, so I have considered cutting hit points for both characters and monsters to 50%.

(2) Characters are too complex so I would eliminate skills and perhaps backgrounds. If doing something "makes sense" for the character (e.g. removing skills from the thief sort of kills the thief class, so logic ought to prevail) then allow for advantage in their rolls.

(3) Monsters are too complex as well. Most of the time I focus on AC, hit points, and damage done. Then I ignore the rest unless it seems really important. Monster stat blocks need to be trimmed a LOT.

Quote from: Jam The MF on December 30, 2021, 07:14:07 PMbecause PCs like to be told what they can do, instead of role playing and growing their character through actual gameplay.

Or its because people like making their characters distinct and mechanically represent the character they roleplay. I can roleplay 'Archie the Archer' till the cows come home but he would play and pan out mechanically exactly like 'Alex the Axeman'. And D&D just has always handed out abilities extremly lopsidedly. 'Sam the Shapeshifter' can play differently then 'Isaac the Illusionist'.

Roleplaying without mechanical backing might as well just be a just telling a story. A storygame if you may.

Some people who don't hate 5E, would like to see it be a little less complex and layered.  More like old school OSR games.

Some people who don't hate 5E, would like to see it be a little more complex and layered.  More like D&D 3.0 / 3.5 / PF 1E.

Some people just love to hate on 5E, and its commercial success drives them bat crazy.

Some people actually love 5E; especially the core of 5E.

I'm mostly in the first group, and somewhat in the last group.  I don't like feats.  It's like building your character, by choosing from a pile of Lego blocks.  Piss on that. 

Who are you?  Where do you come from?  What have you done before?  What are you doing now?  You all meet in a tavern, or in a dungeon, or on a ship, or at the town square, or at a public execution, etc.  Suddenly, "x" happens.  Everyone roll your perception / roll your initiative, etc.  A game is underway, and I don't care about your feat tree.  What do you do?

I would remove THIS



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRinQCqQzoQ

Out, out damned spot!