• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    5e has both too many rules and not enough rules.

    It has very specific rules in some places. Item interactions, many spell specifics, grapple, holding your breath, etc.

    It has very lackluster rules in other places. Social conflict, item and spell crafting, metagame stuff like making your own class or species.

    I think a lot of people playing DND would be happier playing a different system. Just not the same system for everyone.

    • Skabb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      DND writes its rules to be as quick to read and apply to basic situations, but then becomes unwieldy in many if the non-standard cases because they didn’t take the word count to fine tune the rules work as you necessarily would expect, and thus they become confusing.

      Something like PF2E (while not perfect in clarity, but much better) has much more verbose rules, but they do a better job of making them apply to non-standard situations closer to how you expect more often.

    • GTG3000@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      Русский
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It also suffers from not using consistent language and keywords in the rulings.

      The more recent rewrites are better but there would be way fewer discussions on “what exactly does this mean” if there were consistent keywords for things.

      …also I am currently writing a pile of homebrew to try and run a spelljammer game because those books they released inspired me to run a Treasure Planet campaign but didn’t give me nearly enough material.

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. It’s sort of an uncomfortable middle ground, but also just kind of messy.

      And I’m tired, as someone who DMed it a bunch, hearing people act like broken or missing rules aren’t a problem, or somehow even a good thing, because the DM can just make something up. Yeah, not shit. I can do that in literally any game I run. It’s just unpleasant to do in 5e, yet I have to do it all the damn time to keep the game running smoothly. I’d rather have a game that either supports me as a GM, or is easier to improvise.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it was a different thread where I posted about how a guy in my dnd group straight face told us something like “the beauty of DND is we can just try out different rules. If we want to do a chase scene we can try it one way, and if it doesn’t work or we don’t like it we can try something else”.

        I’m just like that’s not a unique property of DND. That’s just how playing make believe works. And I’d rather have a game that runs okay out of the box rather than keep playtesting as a DM, or deal with unchecked dm whims as a player.

        • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That sounds familiar! Partly because I recall reading that, but also because it’s a frustratingly common scenario.

          D&D is, for a ton of people, synonymous with tabletop RPGs. Often that means people think the things they like about playing tabletop RPGs are unique to D&D, even they aren’t.

          What gets me are people who complain about Pathfinder 2e having more rules. You’re just as free to ignore them, and no one has to read much less memorize all the rules. Besides, is anyone under the illusion that players are learning all the rules to 5e?

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why I’m switching to GURPS. It has rules for everything, but it’s very clear that you only need a handful of them, and the rest are options you can decide to use or not. I’m probably not going to use the rocket equations in the Space book to make space travel more realistic, but it’s nice that they’re there in case I wanted to.

    • gerusz@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that’s in the rules. Like, at all. The unarmed fighting style allows you to deal damage to a creature grappled by you, the grappler feat allows you to pin a creature you grappled (which is just fucking useless since both of you become restrained), and you can make a shove attack to push a creature prone. But there’s nothing in the basic rules about an unarmed attack that deals damage and knocks the target prone.

      The alternatives for flavoring are:

      • Battle Master fighter, trip attack. Technically it must be a weapon attack, but if you have the unarmed fighting style, a natural weapon, or are a monk multiclass, I’d be inclined to allow it.
      • Open Hand monk, Open Hand technique. This is probably the best alternative that is 100% RAW.

      Of course a more permissive DM (like me) could allow you to make a fairly hard athletics check once you have grappled the orc and have two free hands, then resolve it as a 2d6+STR bludgeoning damage attack.

      • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s actually really clean ways to handle it. I am impressed. Any chance you would have ideas about more basic wrestling moves? Choke hold? Arm bar?

        • gerusz@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not a wrestler or a wrestling fan, so no clue for most of them. Bars and holds… well, I think the automatic damage to the grappled creature that is dealt with the unarmed fighting style is meant to symbolize damage dealt by various holds and bars, so that would apply here.

          Airway chokes are extremely impractical in D&D; every creature can hold their breath for a number of minutes equal to their CON modifier with a minimum of 1, and that means 10 rounds. I wouldn’t bother trying to simulate that, just deal the 1d4 damage and move on.

          Blood choke… well, that’s a different matter entirely. I would most definitely require the grappler feat and the unarmed fighting style for this. Say, you forgo the automatic damage to the grappled target and instead force the target to make a CON save, DC = 8 + your PB + your STR mod. If the target fails, it gains a level of temporary exhaustion (that lasts while you’re choking it), if it fails by more than 5 then it gains 2 levels, and if it hits 6 levels it falls unconscious.

          • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is probbaly the way to do. It doesn’t feel right to me. I think. Like, I can find you a video of a six year old choking a processional fighter unconscious in 6-12 seconds. The only strength involved would be getting into that position you know. The air choke thing kinda fits with what we observe in realmlife better than what I woudl ahve thought though. For stuff like arm bars or joint hold manuvers it is almost trivially easy to break someone’s arm with a well placed move. Pro fighters often get injured in training when they are trying not to you know. Which would interfere with somatic components at least. The numbers you talked about make sense in terms of a low-level fighter and a peasant with 1d4 hp. But realistically an arch magus would be just as vulnerable to being triangle chocked by a farm boy as the other farmers he us used to wrestling with at festivals.

            • gerusz@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem with this is combat balance. I wouldn’t want to give players an ability that can take out an archmage in 2 turns, no save, without any resources used.

                • gerusz@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s a game, not a simulator. I mean, how would I handle fireballs then? Would I roll for lung damage due to the targets breathing in hot air (enforcing realistic consequences), or would I just disallow the spell because magic is not realistic? Or if the enemy gets shot by an arrow, would I roll for organ damage?

                  And of course you have to account for the fun of all players. Would it be fun for the wrestler player to take out any humanoid in two turns? Probably. Possibly. Would it also be fun for the archer and the swordsman who still have to play by the normal game rules instead of the power fantasy of a “hurr durr wrestling is da ultimate martial art” player, and have to actually use their attacks to overcome the enemies’ AC and whittle down their HP? Doubtful. What’s the point of having them around if the wrestler can just choke everything because that’s the part of combat that the DM suddenly starts simulating realistically?

                  Either enemies can survive a dozen arrows, being roasted alive in their armor for a minute, being stabbed with a rapier a lot, etc… and they can last long enough versus a wrestler that just choking them doesn’t become the dominant strategy, or they can be choked out in a realistic timeframe but they can also be instakilled by an arrow or a sword.

                  If you only take one element of the game and turn it “realistically” OP while the rest remain fantasy, you’re liable to fuck up the whole game for everybody else. Now there could be a merit in playing “dark and gritty, all damage is super lethal” games but then that’s not really D&D anymore, something like Mörk Borg might be better for it.

          • IggythePyro@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think there’s a rules oversight on the choking side of things; while a creature can hold it’s breath for a minimum of 30 seconds (if it has a negative con modifier, which hardly ever comes up), the next paragraph of that rule says: “When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 round).” (emphasis mine) So I’d say that there’s a difference between holding your breath, and being actively strangled- the latter I’d probably rule as a second opposed athletics check during a grapple instead of dealing damage, which puts the creature down after Con Mod consecutive successes.

  • sammytheman666@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you got to look up rules and nobody cares or wants to, skip it. Its my advice. Use rules only if its necessary and soemwhat contributing to a fun experience.

    This is universal.

    • AcidOctopus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. Our entire campaign is home-brewed using the 5e ruleset, but the application of those rules is selective when it needs to be.

      For the most part, we’re following them, but if there’s a rule that results in a level of attention to detail that we simply don’t care to implement, or would have less fun trying to religiously adhere too, we just scrap it in favour of something a bit more light-touch and call it a house rule.

      Rules provide a great framework to base your game on, but the ultimate aim is to create an enjoyable experience and have fun, so bend them and break them when and where you need to for the benefit of all involved.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        One risk with this is when you have a new player join your group. They might expect raw and be surprised by a whole kettle of home brew.

        I for one would be annoyed if I joined a group and found they were ignoring the rest rules. They may be having fun but I would have made different decisions if I’d known what they were actually playing.

        • sammytheman666@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every change should be treated the same : you tell about them at character creation and you tell them during the game while allowing for their set of rules on the present session if you cannot think of them in advance. Homebrew, legal rules, anything should be the same. It’s not during a game that you tell the multiclass druid cleric that the steroid goodberries dont work in your game, as he’s trying to heal someone after a fight. This actually happened to me. Don’t fucking nerf the core of a character’s mechanics midgame.

          • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Don’t fucking nerf the core of a character’s mechanics midgame

            Happened to me once. Built a monk specifically for cool grapple movement interactions because I hate the standard “I attack. You attack me back.” attritional gameplay that DnD normally has.

            Stunned a guy, used my 2nd attack as a grapple, started running up a wall, which both me and the grappled target will fall off at the end of the turn (but I have slow fall, he doesn’t). The GM says:

            “You’re running up the wall with the guy still grappled?”

            “Yes. Perfectly legal according to the rules”

            “You’re grappling an orc fighter”

            “Yes. And?”

            “He’s pretty heavy… Roll me a strength check”

            Cleared it up after the game, but come on man. I explained how my character would work in combat beforehand, don’t nerf me midgame.

    • Xariphon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. 5e is already a watered-down, anemic shadow of what 3.5 was… and this is too complex?

    • Dice@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not the complexity. It’s the bloat, terrible interactions and game dynamics. 3.5 didn’t suffer from gm burn out, but 5e does. Because 5e is a bigger mess.

      • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not on 3.5 per se, but I had years long GM burnout after running my first Pathfinder 1e campaign. Bad memories from it were what actually kept me from giving Pathfinder 2e a chance for a long time.

  • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    5e has too many rules? If anything it seems to be lacking rules. D&D in general has too many options, but 5e often has nothing if you want rules to handle specific non-combat situations,

    When systems go even lighter, it stops even feeling like we are playing a Game, and it starts feeling like annotated improv, which is very much not what I want to play. It never feels right to me as a player to be making sweeping declarations without knowledge of what the GM and the other players are planning.

    • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e. Because that’s a good example of too many rules, in OSR you would use something already existing.

      And you do you, but really the OSR tend to teach players to find ways to avoid rolling altogether by stacking deck in their favor before attempting something.

      • Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e.

        Because water is generally everywhere and you might go in it? Surviving poisonous gases? Strangulation? If you wanted to point at rarely used rules there’s a plethora of better options to pick. This is more like asking why do you need rules for combat.

        • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except the rules are written in such way that they render holding breat irrelevant. You may as well write “unless in combat a character can hold their breath. When in combat, you must roll concentration at end of your turn or suffer level of exhaustion. DM may decide to treat particularly dangerous or prolonged situation as combat at their discression”. And done, you didn’t need to invent new rules just for it, you used an existing system. You could even simplyfy it further and just slap it under concentration rules.

      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Frankly I could point it right back at you as the example of a good thing to have. If you need to dive underwater without equipment or cross smoke during a fire, it’s useful to have a reference of how long you can keep at it, how many rounds does that take, how much distance you can cross, what happens once you can’t keep at it anymore. We are talking about adventurers, it’s surprising that this is somehow thought of as an irrelevant edge case.

        Are we expecting that the player should always have spells or some magic scuba for this?

        I really don’t get what’s with OSR and not wanting to roll. I’m playing an RPG, I’m up for rolling. Though in this case, the rule does not even require rolling until you are already drowning.

          • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            1 con roll for what? A turn? A minute? 10 meters of movement?

            The value of more thorough rules is setting common expectations among everyone. If you’ll just keep making it up by vibes, you don’t need any system. You might not even need dice,

            • Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Per turn. We already have rules for difficult terrain and for movement. Adding more than that is completely unnecessary

              As others have expressed pretty well, a game that fucks up its own core system is bad game design.

              5e keeps on breaking its own core system. Pf2e tries to make everything work with the core system, that’s why its bloat is less confusing than 5es, but it’s still there for the sake of complex combat options

              • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I wouldn’t call that a fuck up by any measure. This seems meaningfully distinct than just “difficult terrain”, since its a hazard in itself. It’s not a matter of just going slow, just staying there is dangerous. Not to mention it can compound with difficult terrain.

                In practice, I’d still prefer the 5e rule where everyone has at least some time they can manage being in there as opposed to just rolling con and having your wizard drown immediately when they touch water like it is a video game.

  • BellyPurpledGerbil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Calling 5e and pf2e bloated with unnecessary rules, meanwhile Pathfinder and 3.5e are quite literally full of a couple decade’s worth of volumes and modules, in comparison to OSR?

    I don’t know if you’re a boomer, a troll, or both

    • sirblastalot@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      3.5 has a ton of splatbooks, sure, but they’re expansions. You go in one, if you want, at character creation to pull out a cool class you want to play. Not playing something out of that book? Then you never need to think about it. It’s not like you have to have encyclopedic knowledge of all the hundreds of splatbooks; all the rules are contained in the DMG and PHB, just like with 5e.

      • BellyPurpledGerbil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re not just calling it big, they’re calling an elephant big in comparison to a crude 8 year old’s drawing of said elephant (and of course the colouring is not inside the lines because it doesn’t have to conform to the consistent rules of an elephant). What purpose does that serve unless you’re the 8 year old trying to make your drawing sound impressive? See how small and unique my elephant is?

        Meanwhile the whale sitting right next to the elephant is like wow that was a very specific callout on their size when I’m sitting right here. That kid must really hate that elephant.

        It’s quite ridiculous. Wrong or right don’t factor into it.

    • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      PF2S is bloated with unnecessary rules. If that’s your thing, and I totally get the appeal of having a “wait let’s just see what nethys says abou — Oh apparently there are mechanics for this drug” moment; personally I find it really gets in the way of the session. Rule and move on with the story. Keep the mechanics to what they need. We’re ultimately dealing with a pretty simple underlying system: d20 roll high. All the subterfuge and wordy mechanics don’t really change that at the end of the day you need to roll a d20 and generally do better than a 12 or so to do what you want.

      • -☆-@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like pf2e has just enough rules to empower the players to the level I like

        The more DM fiat a game has, the more trust I need from my players for things to go smoothly.

        That’s not a bad thing, necessarily, but for me structure is usually good as long as it doesn’t raise the skill floor too high.

        Once I’ve got trust built and feel a bit more experimental, I like Dungeon World or even Universalis

        • elementalguy2@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same I find it easy to gm and the players have enough of a grip of the system to be able to do something out of left field and I can find a way to make it work with the system so that play is smooth but consistent.

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re ultimately dealing with a pretty simple underlying system: d20 roll high

        I highly disagree with this sentiment. You do you, but this is not the general feeling of TTRPG players.

    • Dice@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      PF2e is a joke. It requires reading the whole rules and planning out a character for multiple levels before making your first character. It gatekeeps the hobby worse than FATAL.

      Yeah, PF1 and 3.5e are bloated as hell. But you didn’t need to read all the feats for all the races before picking human fighter. Plus the people still playing those never used everything that was published.

      • Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmao, I think you confused pf1 and pf2. In pf1 you can build yourself into a corner and create useless characters with ease. In 2e the worst characters are still decent

        • Dice@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope, I know both. They both suck because of the required over optimization. But pf1 at least didn’t have characters constantly at full hp, which is one of the biggest balance issues.

          • Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            ??? Have you ever played 2e? That shit is perfectly balanced. Just because fights are designed around having full hp doesn’t mean the players always are.

            In pf1 you can ruin a character with an uninformed choice, in pf2 you can’t. The gap between minmaxxed or not has become reasonable in my opinion.

            • Skabb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You definitely can screw yourself a lot with uninformed choices, but they are less impactful per choice, and the base kit of classes are good enough that bad feat picks won’t make you useless.

              The biggest exception here is spell selection, shit spell selection can feel really bad, and there are a decent amount of “trap” spells (not that the spells are bad, but it’s easy to misunderstand the intended purpose).

            • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              in pf2 you can’t.

              I run pf2e and love it, but I really gotta call this out as bullshit. It’s actually one of the worst things new people can read about the game, imho. I read this a lot as I was learning the system and parroted it to my players. We’re all experienced with TTRPGs, for the record. Despite all the chat from pf2e players that you supposedly cannot ruin a character with bad choices, I assure you it is possible.

            • Dice@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, I’ve played it. And a lot of other games. PF2 balance is only okay and they had to do several annoying things to do it. Like how do you balance a mixed level party in pf2? The system really doesn’t like that, because of it’s number inflation.

                • Dice@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Did I say I still run these games? I hate 5e, pf2, pf1 and wouldn’t touch 3/3.5 again. I ran all of these in the past, except pf2 but I’ve played pf2 plenty to know I hate and will never run it.

                  I run Hackmaster and other systems (oWoD, Cthulhu, WFRP, …) which aren’t bloated messes. I just think pf1 is slightly better than pf2 because that was my experience. But that seems ridiculous to you, because you feel insulted or something. I really don’t care.

  • ssgtmccrae@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m really looking forward to ‘Project: Black Flag’ aka ‘Tales of the Valiant’ aka ‘CORE Ruleset’, which a like-like to 5e (compatible in regard to power-scaling and adventures) that’s in development right now. My community plans to switch to it as soon as it’s out as they are cleaning up a lot of rules and pushing for a world-agnostic system that feels a lot better from both a player and a DM.

  • Rheios@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone’s noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player’s capabilities in place of the character’s. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster’s “power” or a character’s actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the “pack it up” approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)

    The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you’re trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren’t a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don’t think we’ll agree.

    *The “Dorkness Rising” problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.

    • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I might be misunderstanding but what you’re talking about is basically just failures of a DM.

      DMing osr style games requires being more than a simple automaton applying the rules. The systems are simple to allow you to spend your energy elsewhere. I’ll use OSE as an example as that’s what I’m currently DMing.

      Let’s take perception. Firstly if something matters from a fun perspective it should be obvious. For example, if overcoming a trap is fun then the overcoming should involve play, not dice rolls which are there to abstract over tedious or uncertain play. For example a large magical fire blocking the corridor requires no perception but will involve a lot of experimentation to find a way past.

      Or if we are wanting a perception roll like event: Lets say players are stuck and have no ideas for finding a secret door they think is likely there. Who are the characters? not their stats who are they? Ok someone was a farmer prior? huh ok. Give them a clue to follow like “hey Jake the farmer, you notice the air in this room smells familiar, there’s a maddening scent of petrichor which has no place on a dry stone chamber like this one” see what happens. Alternative if Jake asks for a clue ask Jake to describe some way in which who he is applies to the context and set an ability check for a true or false clue. Suddenly a lack of rules is freedom for players to build up their character mythos on the fly.

      Likewise for player skill stuff. No reason a player needs to narrate a conversation anymore than swing an actual sword. If a player asks me if they can make an impassioned arguement based on legal precedent, a sense of justice, and the illegitimacy of a ruler who cannot protect their vassels to the King’s guard then they make such an argument as appropriate to their character’s level of skill.

      • avalokitesha@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neiter you nor the person you’re replying to is wrong, but the way I see it you’re coming from different angles.

        You’re coming from the view of an experienced GM, while the person before you worries about people getting in the game or struggle with their social skills.

        Imho, both ruleset have their place and everything depends on the group, what they want, what their personalities are and how experienced they are.

        I would never run a table because I don’t think I could handle it if one of the players got combative, and that danger is higher when you go rules light I would guess.

        • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not experienced at all! I’m dming my first campaign at the moment. I did play as a teenager in the 2000s but that was pathfinder which worked quite differently.

          It does ask more of players, and it wont work with a group that doesn’t have the confidence to ask meta questions about the game but you can definitely foster that! when disputes come up there are multiple ways of handling things, I haven’t had any bad ones but 2 come to mind.

          In one I didn’t adequately communicate to the players the threat of a foe and they felt frustrated, we just rewound time and tried again after a brief chat about non combat options. In another I just asked a player what they thought was fair and they ended up coming up with something reasonable.

          I think there’s a harmful view that ttrpgs are like a meal the GM cooks and delivers to the players which they either enjoy or not rather than a collaboratory effort of mutual play. Players should add to scenes etc (e.g. “Is there/could there be a window we could jump from?”), be part of adjudication when it wont kill pacing or during tricky situations.

          Like all play it requires trust, but that’s true in modern DnD too with all sorts of broken interpretations of rules and zany magic items etc. All games where players and DMs are adversaries break down.

          • avalokitesha@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are just bringing examples where insecure people who struggle with social skills (hi, nice to meet you) would not be able to handle it.

            You kinda completely blazed past my point while confirming it. Clearly for you rules light is great. I’m trying to tell you there’s people who are not you and who need more rules to even dare to try.

            • cyberdecker@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              insecure people who struggle with social skills

              Hi, also me. Nice to meet you.

              This is why I run “rules-light” systems and why you won’t find me running (or playing, anymore) games like DND. The complexity of rules is just too much for me to remember and memorize. I don’t have it in me to argue and debate about applying a rule and would prefer not to interact with someone who is rules lawyering. I find that having those rules there is more intimidating to me than anything else. I feel like I have to work with rules first and then find ways to be an agent of my character within that.

              Because of my own insecurities, I tend to lean on systems that require more collaboration, discussion and openness. I can’t really be wrong if we have collectively decided on a choice about our story. And even in that, calling it, our story carries so much power and lifts a huge weight off of my shoulders in terms of pressure for both playing and running a game. This is how I can skirt around my own insecurities and work with the kind of social skills that I have and prefer to use. I want collaborators rather than adversaries since that is socially much safer. Consequently, this also leads to very rich storytelling.

                • cyberdecker@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s taken a while to find “my people.” I try to surround myself with good people both ocially and professionally. And the kind of people I like to be around tend to be good discussion partners and usually make great collaborators and storytellers. I hope you can find your people someday too! Keep looking, they are out there.

            • InsurgentRat@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              But I’m an insecure person. I speak maybe 100 words aloud a week outside of gaming.

              It’s not easy to enforce rules without confience, much easier to build consensus than be a dictator

              • avalokitesha@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The easiest way is to say “this is the rules as written, deal with it, we don’t do homebrew here” for me. The people I met in game spaces where not the type to reach a consensus quickly. I guess I’ve just been unlucky.

  • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be honest, I found 5e is so massively oversimplified it’s boring. Maybe I didn’t play enough to comb through books of niche rules or something.

  • darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t find 5e bloated exactly. But I do think it has a few too many systems in place, sometimes with overlapping use-cases.

    Like attacks, skill checks, saves… They’re all basically the same thing, an opposed check, but they have slightly different rules. Sometimes the player is rolling against a target, but sometimes the target is rolling to save against? It’s a little strange, and adds a bit of extra complexity where I don’t really think it’s necessary.

    A lot of it is just legacy systems that are kept because it wouldn’t be D&D without them.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This introduces confusion in new players like “sorry cat’s grace only applies to dex skill checks, not saves”. Which then makes them think all RPGs are a convoluted stack of exceptions, so they don’t try other games.

  • Dice@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    5e isn’t just needlessly complex, it is an unreferencable mess that has very poor general rules with lots of exceptions and poor standardization. The rules for traveling are so misplaced that most players don’t know they exist, not that it’s possible to find them when needed. And when there are general rules, they tend to be unfun. Stuff like crafting has no depth in 5e, it’s just time + gold = item. It might “work”, but it’s just bookkeeping there is no hidden fun.

    For fantasy, I prefer Hackmaster 5e, because it keeps the complexity and detail without dumping special case rules onto players. It’s not perfect, but it’s way more engaging and characters feel way more interesting. WFRP 4e is also nice, but not as deep (it does suffer from rules being scattered everywhere). I’ll likely end up playing OSE ot some point.

  • Pyro@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Depends on the game the group likes. More narrative driven game it can conflict and have issues

    However, there is something nice about knowing a balanced way to do x or y across the board and at different tables.

    A good gm should be able to make a note of something or make a quick call especially in pf2e case were generic difficulty dc per level is given

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      However, there is something nice about knowing a balanced way to do x or y across the board and at different tables.

      I don’t agree with this argument. Balancing is the job of the GM. Unless the GM acts as a glorified screenreader who only reads a pre-made adventure to the players with no influence what happens. But if the GM decides what monsters you run into, the GM has more influence over the balancing than the game framework. So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing?

      I mean, pen&paper RPGs aren’t a players vs GM game, but instead the GM plays together with the players to create an interesting experience where everyone has fun. No need for the framework to do balancing, because a good GM will do that.

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing

        Because they should have fun too? Having to rule and improvise everything makes for a harder job for them, needing to keep track of everything to make it consistent, and it’s also bad for players too, since they don’t really know what to expect.

      • hukumka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        While GM decides what monsters to throw into players, they still need to know what they could use without it being either underwhelming or overwhelming. You dismiss this simply by saying: “just be a good DM”.

        • New DM’s will want guidelines to start from.
        • If combat is important having written rules help to use consistent ruling on same situation in different instances.
        • Story focused DM might reduce amount of effort needed to plan combat, since there is no need to build it from scratch.

        Disadvantage of having to look up rules then you don’t remember them could be mitigated by just saying: Look guys, I don’t remember ruling now, so not to break the flow, I will rule it this way, and look it up later.

        So while for most players rule heavy systems are less accessible, they are actually more accessible for many DMs, and since mastering have much higher barrier of entry, such systems at least should not be dismissed outright.

      • Skabb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if you have the tools that tell you how to make differently balanced encounters, it makes the job of balancing the game waaaay easier.

      • PoTayToes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing?

        Because having things balanced properly in regard to the myriad options that are possible in people imaginations is hard, especially related to combat. Improper balacing leads to people having a bad time, while having an established, fair ruleset lets the DM and the players focus on other things.

        No need for the framework to do balancing, because a good GM will do that.

        But at this point why even have rules? A “good GM” can just entirely improvise a system.

        • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          But at this point why even have rules? A “good GM” can just entirely improvise a system. On the other hand,. if you’re the slave to rules, are you even still the GM or just a refferee? It’s a sliding scale people fall on, honestly. 5e tried to have it cake and eat it too, insert itself in the middle. You could argue it succeeded, but that makes people naturally drift away from it in either direction. I just think we tend to forget the scale goes both ways and there are more options than Pathfinder with rules for everything.

          • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You sound like you’re trying to say that GMs who run modules by the book aren’t real GMs, and that’s some gatekeepy bullshit.

      • Horst_Voller@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Balancing is the job of the GM.

        And some systems make that job easier for the GM than other systems. Winning all the time without challenge is boring. Getting TPKd every other session does not feel good. A good GM should hit somewhere in-between. So you either have a system that helps you do that or you really need to have a lot of experience.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Keep balance for computer games. If I’m playing an RPG I want to be able to do crazy things if I plan and execute it properly. And rules for stumble attacks of opportunity for holy clerics of the sun just get in the way of the good stuff.

      • Dice@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is entirely correct. Balance does not matter in most games, because most games have resources that are depleted over a long term. You don’t need balance when healing takes weeks or difficult to replace resources.

        For games like 5e and pf2, where characters constantly are at full health, spells and equipment, combat needs to almost kill the party every time to be worth rolling dice.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes; or be an incredibly long boring slog because it needs to divorce the party from so many resources.

  • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d say it’s more of a 5e & PF problem, PF2e is much better about general rules that apply to most cases, with player abilities adding additional things on top.

    But yeah, generally if you want to play 5e OSR is a better choice.

  • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hereby grant everyone permission to make up whatever rules they want for their rule sets.

    Having rules for more situations is a feature, not a bug. You can always choose not to look up the rule and make something up, but if you ever want something that a designer spent some time on instead of making it up on the fly, you have the option

    • TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand, if you had basic rules be flexible and understandable enough, you could by common sense apply them to most of situations and devs could focus on polishing the edges where you would need a specific rules, which should be few and far in-between.

      • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rule 1: The DM describes the environment.

        Rule 2: The players describe what they want to do.

        Rule 3: The DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions.

        The rules on how to play are pretty basic and very flexible. You can easily play an entire game or campaign not going past those three rules or needing anything more in depth than that.

        Some folks like crunch. Some folks like heavy crunch, some like light crunch. Some folks just want a mushy bowl of cereal. We’re all just playing make believe. What rules you use is up to your table and what kind of crunch they want.

      • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Could you give an example in 5e or pf2e where that’s not the case? Because that sounds pretty much like skill checks (basic flexible rules with common sense) and then the specific scenarios.

        In my opinion, pf2e does this very well. One instance that has come up for me (in 5e) is doing a chase. With the existing rules, you can just have them run with their base speed, or have them make an athletics or acrobatics check, and that’ll work just fine (and is what I did) but isn’t particularly fun. Pathfinder includes specific rules for chase sequences (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1210) that is much more thought out and engaging. As a DM, you’re under no obligation to have to do these just because there’s a chase going on, if it’s spur of the moment base skill checks work in a pinch, but if it’s something I can plan for or I’m already familiar with those “rules” I can do something much more entertaining.

      • Dice@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really is crazy how hard new players defend 5e and pf2 when so many other games make GMing actually fun and easy.