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

    • GTG3000@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      Русский
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
      1
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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.

  • BellyPurpledGerbil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    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

      • BellyPurpledGerbil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        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
      ·
      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.

      • 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.

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

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

            • 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.

            • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              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.

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

  • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      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.

      • Dice@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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.

  • Pyro@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      0
      ·
      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.

      • PoTayToes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
            0
            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.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        ·
        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.

  • Rheios@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

  • macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    5e is pretty light though, and in most cases too light so the DM has no idea what to do and has to resort to “Rulings”.

    PF2e on the otherhand is crunchy AF and its awesome like that. It doesn´t have extra rules for everything, its all based on the same framework, which is pretty awesome.

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

      PF2 is certainly easier to run. But tell me when it becomes a RPG, it’s basically a video game system ported to tabletop. Everything is about the builds, not the characters.

      • macniel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What would it take to make it a RPG? Some characters are flawed in certain things while excel at others. But what you want your character to be, its in your hands due to how you build your character. That´s part of your character, same goes to the backstory you may have developed and inform your build.

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

          Well they could stop gamifying RP and exploration so players actually get into character instead of just rolling dice. But that’s a pretty fundamental shift, so they won’t do it.

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

              No, I dislike games like pf2 because the MDA framework they have designed is detrimental to the medium of roleplaying games. Because the mechanics encourage players to use PC in non-diegetic dynamics crippling the aesthetics of any setting or genre.

          • mojorizer@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Let me get this straight: you don’t like crunchy rule sets, you don’t like character builds and progression and you don’t like rolling dice? Sounds to me like you don’t like TTRPGs.

            I mean you can just read a story to your players or skip the whole tabletop part altogether and do an improv theatre session.

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

              Where did I say I don’t like dice or crunch? I literally run Hackmaster. You don’t even know Hackmaster do you? Sure I don’t like bloated player options that cause power creep and slow the game down. But that doesn’t mean I do sloppy improv or storytell railroads like Critical Role or Dimension 20.

              I’ve only been running rpgs 20 years. Has it occurred to you that you don’t like rpgs if you just play 5e or PF2. Are you even a gamemaster?

              • mojorizer@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Maybe it’s just my imagination, but didn’t you comment multiple times that you want your players rather roleplay than rolling dice, play their characters and not the character builds they created and that systems like PF2e are too videogamey?

                But to quench your thirst about my experiences: I am playing and DMing TTRPGs for about 10 years now. My groups are mostly running PF1e, Call of Cthulhu and Numenera, but for one shots we also like to try smaller systems like Dungeon Crawl Classics, Paranoia or Savage Worlds. I play with and DM for veterans and new players alike. I would say that I know one or two things about this matter, but who knows.

                No matter what system we run, we never really have a problem with the rules and there is always room for fun and engaging RP. To me the overall critique in this thread sounds like a homemade problem on the DM side of things. You don’t have to know and use all the rules a system is offering you (looking at you, Pathfinder), but it’s really nice to know that there are rules for almost anything. And if you get the feeling that you have to fill the gaps with homebrew rules too often, then maybe the system isn’t the right one for what you are going for in your campaign or maybe you have to adjust your style of DMing.

                This year for example I started a new PF1e campaign with people that never played a TTRPG before and they love it. I was afraid that this system could be too much for inexperienced players but they already get creative with the rules in combat and they engage in serious RP. They reached level 6 and can’t wait to develop the stories of their characters further.

                But calling a watered down and noob friendly system like D&D5e being too complicated and rule heavy? Or calling a system like Pathfinder not a true RPG? Idk man. Maybe TTRPGs aren’t your thing if you really think that or maybe your approach at DMing is fundamentally flawed.

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

            Are you one of the players who wants to “just talk out” social conflicts? That’s a totally valid way to play but I hate it. Or at least I hate it when the game has stats for like charisma and intelligence. I cannot be 20 charisma in real life do not try to make me.

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But tell me when it becomes a RPG, it’s basically a video game system ported to tabletop

        Uh… tabletop came before videogames…

        Anyway, no. An RPG is a Role Playing Game, it’s a game where you take the role of someone, either created by you or given by the game (be it a videogame or not), and you experience the things that happens to that character.

        Saying that TTRPGs are video games ported to TT is like saying that Lord of the Rings is a story written within the DnD lore. It’s completely wrong.

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

          Why is everyone here so bad at reading? I specifically am calling out PF2 for being designed as if it was a video game. I am saying Paizo doesn’t understand the medium of RPGs, because they don’t.

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, given their success as a release, I’d say that they do inderstand the medium, and that not all RPGs must be made in the same line. I’d hate to play a game where I rescind all power to the GM.

            I know that GMs always have the final say in any system, but having an expectation of what is going to happen is crucial to me as a player, and as stated in another comment, GMs need to have fun too, and sometimes having a well defined system is what a GM needs to feel like all they need to do is design and let the game take reins for balance. I understand that there are different types of GMs, but that’s kind of the point.

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

              Understanding the market is not understanding the medium. Why is everyone putting words in my mouth. I am not advocating for some crazy free form improv without rolls or some other ruleless non-sense.

              I’m saying that 5e and PF2 are not well-defined systems. You can have a different opinion, of course you will. And specifically that GMs burn out in these systems because they are not fun for GMs longterm.