Quote from: Omega;11071904: The Monster Manual and most of the expansion books are way way way way too demon happy. No really. Alot of monsters in 5e have been changed to be one way or another some sort of demon spawn or demon influenced transformation. There are now at least two campaign modules where hellish beings play a major role.

  The game's been oversaturated with fiends since WotC took over, perhaps as a backlash against TSR sidelining them, perhaps due to the game becoming more and more self-involved with its lore. Paizo's run on Dragon was even worse for both the daemonophilia and the deep dives into D&D history.

Quote from: tenbones;1107206Most importantly - NONE of these things make 5e a *bad* game. *I* am not the targeted demographic of 5e, despite me, until recently, being a nearly lifelong D&D player. 5e helped me greatly come to that realization. My "itch" has evolved in ways that 5e is not designed to scratch - by intent, and that's fine. I've taken great solace in accepting some positive things about 5e in crystallizing some opinions about what is truly great in the OSR and 1e/2e. And for me, that alone is good enough.

That's where I'm at, but it's driven me back to 3.5. I like 3.5's robust skill system, core classes, combat engine, and the concept of feats. It needs some definite mods to shape it into something I like, just like OSR stuff needs mods.

5e is not a bad game, but "ok" isn't good enough for the table. It's a similar problem I have with PF2e or Starfinder, they are OK but why would OK ever be acceptable when you could play something great?

Maybe that's only a problem you get when you can GM. You run into the issue of "even though I prefer playing, I'd rather run X system than play an OK system".

5e is so comprised that I consider it the 2nd worst game of the line. Yeah 4e is a great particular kind of game and really mastered the "Encounter Design as Game" philosophy, that didn't jive with a lot of people, but it is still great for what it is. 5e is just 4e with a lot of the guts ripped out and covered with a thick nostalgia veneer. For those of you that love 5e but hate 4e, you just love a more thematic presentation and layout. It only has less rules because they took them out and didn't replace them with anything. Even the 5e skill system is actually just a small part of the 4e skill system.
3.5 is great game after you learn the system and rules, the prospect of actually learning all those rules is so terrible, that I would say overall 3e is a bad game and actually worse than 5e. I'd rather pay 3.5 than 5e, but that is because I know the rules.

Quote from: Rhedyn;11072195e is not a bad game, but "ok" isn't good enough for the table. It's a similar problem I have with PF2e or Starfinder, they are OK but why would OK ever be acceptable when you could play something great?

Maybe that's only a problem you get when you can GM. You run into the issue of "even though I prefer playing, I'd rather run X system than play an OK system".

5e is so comprised that I consider it the 2nd worst game of the line. Yeah 4e is a great particular kind of game and really mastered the "Encounter Design as Game" philosophy, that didn't jive with a lot of people, but it is still great for what it is. 5e is just 4e with a lot of the guts ripped out and covered with a thick nostalgia veneer. For those of you that love 5e but hate 4e, you just love a more thematic presentation and layout. It only has less rules because they took them out and didn't replace them with anything. Even the 5e skill system is actually just a small part of the 4e skill system.
3.5 is great game after you learn the system and rules, the prospect of actually learning all those rules is so terrible, that I would say overall 3e is a bad game and actually worse than 5e. I'd rather pay 3.5 than 5e, but that is because I know the rules.

The "OK" system gets played because I can easily find 4-6 players that agree that it is OK. The "great" systems are often only seen that way by 1-2 players and the rest think it's crap, so it doesn't see play.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107212That's where I'm at, but it's driven me back to 3.5. I like 3.5's robust skill system, core classes, combat engine, and the concept of feats. It needs some definite mods to shape it into something I like, just like OSR stuff needs mods.

So... since you went back to 3.5, based on your response I have to ask - did you consider trying Fantasy Craft?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1107230The "OK" system gets played because I can easily find 4-6 players that agree that it is OK. The "great" systems are often only seen that way by 1-2 players and the rest think it's crap, so it doesn't see play.

I would add that since we're talking about D&D... THAT is the game that gets most new players into the hobby...

And if it sticks - they are often the ones that become introduced to other systems/settings and they become one of those 1-2 players over time. Assuming they get beyond their D&D Edition Tribe of the Moment.

Quote from: tenbones;1107233I would add that since we're talking about D&D... THAT is the game that gets most new players into the hobby...

And if it sticks - they are often the ones that become introduced to other systems/settings and they become one of those 1-2 players over time. Assuming they get beyond their D&D Edition Tribe of the Moment.

The realities between an established group and people who need to pug are very different.

Our established group plays whatever we want, but enough of us dislike 5e that we do not bother with it anymore.

But yes, the 1-2 players that think a storygame is great when no one else likes storygames would be an issue in most online pug groups (where storygame enthusiast get basically all of their RPG time from)

How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Conventions are naturally going to converge around a subset of ways to do things--sometimes so slowly as to not matter much at that time and place but real nonetheless.  This will cause people who aren't into the convergence to be less likely to go.  Rinse and repeat.  

Unless kept explicitly and vigorously open, any group will become a clique sooner or later.  It doesn't necessarily have to be political, but something will close it.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

My suspicion is that pugging is majority of what people who post on forums do. I consider all online play "pugging". Once you've played with a person 6 months, they aren't a stranger and basically any campaign is going to take longer than that. I think the MMO idea of pugging random people every session is not common, but I suspect that the majority of RPG play is people pugging online for campaigns (to different extents, some people just pug from their rp discord groups).

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The best answer is to go a convention or frequent a game store and ask enough people to get a sense of how it works socially. My opinion it happens, it not infrequent, there are nuances, but most people game with a steady group.

What new the equation is the rise of Roll20/Fantasy Ground and other VTTs to game over the internet.  Many VTTs have a feature or site to allow you to browse for open groups.

But again it is naunced but my opinion most play with a steady group.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

What I find that some people develop social relationship centered on the game store and more infrequently conventions. That they become "regulars". All the game stores I gamed regularly at had a core group that showed up week after week.

What different with a game store group over my home (or online group) that it is generally expected that you will allow strangers to join if there is room. It not your space but the store's so basically the store's pool of customers are eligible to play. But again it is nuanced and not like super formal or anything except for organized play events.

Yeah - it's one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of online play. Tried it a few times - with close friends from LA into my Dallas group... it didn't feel right.

When we stopped at a natural place, we went out separate ways with zero problems. We all agreed the face-to-face elements missing got in the way of the level of gaming we all wanted. And I'm more than confident that most people from the outside would never have noticed (like I said it wasn't bad. It just didn't hit the mark I normally shoot for).

So another facet to this discussion - what *is* that level of play you're shooting for? It's one of the reasons I stopped running adventures at conventions - it felt too "one note" to me. I simply want a more in-depth and expansive experience than I can typically get in a one-shot. Especially in the environment of a convention.

Don't get me wrong - I've had INSANELY good games at Cons. But they're very rare, compared to what I normally consume outside of cons.

So I fully submit, it might be entirely me. I don't typically "play casually".

I'm glad for the last few posts telling me what "pugging" is because I thought it was crossing over to the BDSM thread (and I'm glad it's not).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1107249My suspicion is that pugging is majority of what people who post on forums do. I consider all online play "pugging".

That would be a mistaken assumption. Sure it is possible to be more open on the internet if that what one wants to do. But the vast majority of people I know who play regularly on-line with VTTs have their own long term group. But instead of meeting at a house, everybody meets on-line.

In general the current era of VTTs feels a lot like circa 1980 to 1982 for me when a large number of my junior high and senior high classmate were playing D&D. I had my friends and did most of my gaming with them. But in regards to gaming the school functioned like a blog or forum where we all were aware of who was gaming and what they were doing.

Occasionally people who know each other but don't hang out would get together and game. With the usual range of good to bad you hear from cons, stores, etc. For example one of my friends had to go chasing after a kid after a session at somebody house because the kid stole his dice.

With VTTs it easy for people who know each other through blogging and forum to get together and run some tabletop.

Quote from: tenbones;1107257So another facet to this discussion - what *is* that level of play you're shooting for? It's one of the reasons I stopped running adventures at conventions - it felt too "one note" to me. I simply want a more in-depth and expansive experience than I can typically get in a one-shot. Especially in the environment of a convention.

It about the situation depicted by the adventure. Scourge of the Demon works, want I ran this Monday wouldn't. Both reflect how I run things in my campaign but it just happens Scourge is self-contained enough that with OD&D I can run it within a four hour time block without undue time pressure. With 5th edition I need about 5 hours or I face severe time crunch.

Not the difference between 5e and OD&D is not just a Scourge thing, it has happened on several adventures, I ran.

Quote from: tenbones;1107257So I fully submit, it might be entirely me. I don't typically "play casually".

Random Con Players take Scourge just as "seriously" as my home table did when I ran it for them. As well as the other con adventures that I am playtesting and haven't published.

Again I found that some adventures and situations work good for a con and other don't. I keep a log of all sessions I run, (most of them are just a date so it not that special) and maybe out the ten years I been logging stuff ten sessions produced something I used later in a con. Which is OK because I go to Cons once or twice a year so I don't need that much material.