92
Hot Take: 5e is too bloated with unnecessary rules and should be simplified (ttrpg.network)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I recommend this video to look more into OSR philosophy regarding the rules: https://www.youtube.com/live/bCxZ3TivVUM?si=aZ-y2U_AVjn9a6Ua

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 3 years ago (23 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The builds are an expression of character development tho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Character development as characterization or character development as shonen protagonist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Both, because it's high fantasy. The way that pf2 is designed you can pick almost anything at every level. If your character trains with monks for some time, great level that! Your great grandfather was an orc, but you are a gnome? We got you covered. The bloat is in the freedom of expression. And complaining about the 3 action system is okay, but come on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago

    No. I use different ways to resolve social conflicts based on what the situation is. Sometimes that's rolling dice, sometimes it's talking in character and sometimes it's in-between stuff. Stop trying to shove me into some stereotype. Are you going to stereotype me as a Hackmaster gm? A Keeper? An ultraviolet? A storyteller?

    I don't expect pf2 players to understand my point of view, especially non-gamemasters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    But how does roling dice, when the outcome of a situation is uncertain, inhibit you from roleplaying your character?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It doesn't. It just conditions players towards not doing it by replacing interacting with the world with interacting with rules and dice. Which doesn't stop experienced players, but misleads new players in a video game mindset.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Okay, but what can a solid and crunchy RPG System do for new players that expect Skyrim on a table? And on the other hand, what can those player get out of a rules light game? They would be entirely lost. Which then would result in just make.believe, which doesn´t need rules to begin with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Have you ever played with new players? I've ran non-dnd with new players several times. Including systems like Call of Cthulhu. Objectively speaking Cthulhu (BRP) is pretty rules light and my players had no trouble learning it. They just said what they wanted to do and I told them what to roll. They start to find the freedom in the system and get more creative. And a similar situation happens when I run more complex systems. I honestly have no clue what you are worried about. Players can learn how to play these games, they aren't that hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    To be clear, you're mad that an RPG has too much G in its RP?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, I want my players to roleplay. The issue I have with pf2 and 5e is that they require way more work to get into a decent balance between combat, roleplaying and exploration. Often ending up very combat heavy and characters that "excel" at non-combat encounters end up trivializing them instead.

    These dice rolls end up replacing roleplaying instead of enhancing it. In addition because of the rules interactions, poor wording and power creep in these systems the ability for GMs to avoid burn out is low. I don't like them because they are toxic to new gamemasters, I have no technical issue running them. I ran several long campaigns in 5e, 3.5 and pf1. I don't have burn out issues with Hackmaster, WFRP, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, WoD, Ryuutama, ... . It's purely a problem with recent d20 player option focused systems and it will only get worse with more WotC and Paizo releases.

    My GMing is fine. I make mistakes at times and don't always follow my own best practices. But I run fun games in many systems easily. I don't get why you are trying to gatekeep me out of the hobby. I don't like two games because they suffer from fundamental flaws born out of ivory tower game design. If you can't see those flaws, that's you.

    Maybe I should make my point clear. Players love 5e and PF2, GMs learn to hate them or quit. Because they are only noob friendly to players, not GMs. It's why homebrew games are less common in them and typically only run by veteran GMs. I literally do not care how hard players have it to learn a system. Players always have a GM to support them, it's trivial to teach a player. Teaching a new GM is frustrating when 5e and pf2 teach bad habits like everything is combat or a pass/fail roll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Pathfinder 2e in particular is very good at making combat feel cinematic and role-playee, where teamwork matters, so players interact with each other a lot more. Having a combat heavy system doesn't make it a bad system, it just means it's a good RPG system for heavy combat role-playing. It also allows the "g" part in "rpg" to be more present as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent