Search results

Uh, what? I'm no big fan of 5e but 'plays more like PbtA than trad D&D' tells me a) you aren't familiar with PbtA and b) your idea of trad D&D starts with 3e.

'I think a plan is just a list of things that don't happen' - Parker, The Way of the Gun

The sky above the port was the colour of streaming, tuned to a dead platform. I love Neuromancer, this should be good!

I for one am SHOCKED at Snarf Zagyg's latest rant about the scandals with Daggerheart! You won't believe the third one!!!

Popcorn and whisky then!

Someone I've never heard of has an opinion on a thing that didn't happen? Hol up lemme get my popcorn

It occurs to me you might find this interesting. I'm a player in a very long-running D&D campaign that always uses the current ruleset and started under 2e. We're currently at level 16. We've been using 2014 5e and will switch to A5e soon. My character is a fighter/ranger/barbarian. I like to...

That's cool. I recognise that there are ways to make it work and have fun with it. Sometimes that's because of a deliberate approach and sometimes it's because the particular alchemy of a group or GM is a natural fit for how the game works anyway. I'm glad you're having a fun time with it! :)

2e had racial abilities like infravision and detect slopes in passageways that were universal and largely non-combat relevant. The stat modifiers were much smaller and stats in general were less important. There was much less of a sense that playing a non-typical race/class combination was being...

If you mean the loss of a character, then I definitely agree that's different. If you mean more of a failed adventure or a story defeat then I can see how people could feel disappointed but not to the extent that it would make the session unenjoyable.

I get what you're saying but ultimately, if the game only works when people don't think about it too much, then the game doesn't really work. This is similar to the 3e thing where the designers thought everyone would just build and play clerics like they had in 2e, rather than players engaging...

Not really. You still have an action economy, race abilities, class abilities, backgrounds, paths, ASIs.

Yeah, for sure. I vaguely remember an old 3e thread (not here) about how a player who just naively wanted to play a shapeshifting and summoning druid and had a terrible time when it turned out so he effortlessly made the rest of the party wholly ineffective by comparison. I remember playing a...

Superman is evil anyways.

I think 5e is actually a poster child for the kind of problem I've been talking about. It's built solidly on the foundations of 3e and 4e in terms of having character generation based on a giant menu of competing rules packets, and of combat focusing on efficient use of those abilities and...

WFRP 1e is great and it's still a game I run occasionally. It doesn't sound to me like this new version has any value.

Maybe 'the rest of the world' just means the US, but in the UK poor loser and bad loser are common and sore loser is not.

I'm with you. I used to play Magic the Gathering at a semi-competitive level (two GP day twos and one PT), and I still play at local game nights and such. I definitely play to win, and try to gain every (sportsmanlike) edge I can. But, I don't feel bad when I lose, unless maybe it was because...

Agreed. This is what I was trying to get at earlier in terms of this being a game design/game choice problem. It is not an unavoidable choice for RPG characters to be built from a large menu of bespoke rules packets. However, if you have a game like this, it is unavoidable that some of them...

You only ever respond with 'well ackshually' and pedantry. Please stop responding to me at all.