| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all even close to the same. See if you can enforce rolling do personality at a PFS group. I don't think most players at home groups would sit for it, let alone not whine about it stifling their creativity and concept.
If the Gamemastery Guide is rules, then so is the Strategy Guide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, works for me, I don't really follow rules anyway.
I'm Chaotic Good.
That was almost as fun as my Smurf trap! TOZ may be on to something here...
Not at all even close to the same. See if you can enforce rolling do personality at a PFS group.
In support of this, I'd like to point to the old Pendragon and Ars Magica games, which did have rules for roleplaying. Both games had actual numerical scores for various personality traits, so you might have a 3 in "Courage." This number, in turn, turned into a target number you needed to beat on a roll in order to do something particularly brave (or particularly cowardly).
Sounds an awful lot like the D&D "Will save vs. fear" effect, doesn't it? But it applied to any personality trait, so if you wanted to attack the local priest, you'd need to make a roll modified by your Piety score, and if you wanted to avoid pushing a button labelled 'don't push me or bad stuff will happen,' you'd need to make a role modified by your Curiosity score and/or your Common Sense (or Genre Savvy) score.
Those are rules for roleplaying, just as the skills chapter in Pathfinder provides rules for persuading the King to do you a favor, or high-jumping over a stone wall, or knowing that this particular tentacled icky is allergic to peanuts. Neither the player nor the GM is expected to handwave "well, you're a high-level rogue, but you're not particularly bookish so,....."
Pathfinder provides rules for skills. Pathfinder also provides rules for tricks in combat -- if I want to disarm my foe without hurting him, here are the rolls I need to make, here are the modifiers to my rolls, and here are the rolls and actions my foe can take in response. Pathfinder barely provides suggestions for roleplaying.
My point was 4th edition was entirely about combat, with almost nothing to support what happens off the combat mat.
Edit: Of course my point was lost in a sea of my own pedantry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I DID SAY and skills and the results of your choices in my original argument that it was primarily a combat game.
I only skimmed your post first time, then put in my reactionary two cents.
I am (still) Chaotic Good after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic doesn't mean not thorough. Look at V for Vendetta; you were lazy :-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also didn't read anything that was above it.
Wild Card B!#%#es!!
Chaotic doesn't mean not thorough. Look at V for Vendetta; you were lazy :-P
I'm certainly not watching that. :-)
And I'm not lazy, just busy. :-)
Edit: I thought no one took me seriously anymore anyway, my apologies.
On the idea that you're punished for making flavor choices; I think that's true but not to a great extent unless you're optimizing in some way. I know Stormwind Fallacy gets called a lot but honestly the most functional games I've ever run or played were the tables of people who couldn't optimized their way out of a paper bag because the bar was low to be useful compared to your fellow players, making flavor build decisions less detrimental and the APs were still 'winnable' with a bunch of scrub builds playing through. Basically if you're not using the internet to sort out the best things to do then more like 90% of a given book is pretty useful instead of garbage.
I can honestly say that I've never taken a build off a forum, they are always min/max one-trick ponies good only for spamming a single kind of attack, pointless at the table.
Powergaming is about doing many things very well, its about covering your weaknesses. Min/maxing is about doing one thing to extremes and be praktically naked in other areas.
Both can be fun in theory, but needs quite a bit of moderation to be interesting in a real game.
But; never having used a build from a forum I still find that 50-75% of the non-golarion material is garbage (setting material is a little better, showing that Paizo - thankfully - loves their setting).
On the idea that you're punished for making flavor choices; I think that's true but not to a great extent unless you're optimizing in some way. I know Stormwind Fallacy gets called a lot but honestly the most functional games I've ever run or played were the tables of people who couldn't optimized their way out of a paper bag because the bar was low to be useful compared to your fellow players, making flavor build decisions less detrimental and the APs were still 'winnable' with a bunch of scrub builds playing through. Basically if you're not using the internet to sort out the best things to do then more like 90% of a given book is pretty useful instead of garbage.I can honestly say that I've never taken a build off a forum, they are always min/max one-trick ponies good only for spamming a single kind of attack, pointless at the table.
Powergaming is about doing many things very well, its about covering your weaknesses. Min/maxing is about doing one thing to extremes and be praktically naked in other areas.
Both can be fun in theory, but needs quite a bit of moderation to be interesting in a real game.
But; never having used a build from a forum I still find that 50-75% of the non-golarion material is garbage (setting material is a little better, showing that Paizo - thankfully - loves their setting).
I'm not really talking about making builds from the net but developing a consciousness of what is efficient and generating higher goal posts for what's necessary to be 'viable'.
I've had loads of fun in low op and high op games but its when they mix that things from either end of the spectrum get annoying and I find myself generally enjoying low op games. (by low op I mean on the general power level of the Iconics stat blocks.) I don't how exactly how diverse this gets because I mix in a lot of third party at this point meaning that obscure flavor options have way more chances to combo with weird third party stuff so my mileage is actually really good for some things.
I haven't bought 3rd party stuff since 3.5, most of that was terrible, but many good things have come to Pathfinder, such as Dreamscarred press.
My approach is not viability, its traps. There is no good reason why a character should need at feat to fire a ranged weapon while prone without taking penalties, or having a feat to make a non-lethal coup de gras. Even worse when you need a class ability to be good at starting rumours.
There is a huge number of feats, archetypes and spells that are not only sub-optimal, but actually makes a party worse off if they are in play.
Many spells in newer material are worse versions of the ones in core or the apg. Loads of feats only serve to place restrictions on something that used to be possible for free and several archetypes leave a character with less than if they had stayed "vanilla."
Most of these traps come with thematically interesting descriptions, but when they come into play, they handicap the player or group to the point where it becomes annoying for the player or group - and not necessarily from a viability standpoint but also concerning concept and ability to do more than sit around for whole game sessions at a time :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was 4th edition was entirely about combat, with almost nothing to support what happens off the combat mat.
4e has as much support for non-combat and role-playing as Pathfinder.
I would say that there aren't that many trap options. They exist and are in greater number than I'm terribly comfortable with, and I tend to ignore feats that allow something that I already allow for free but they don't make up 25% of material I have.
I would take up third party Pathfinder material. Some companies are hell bent on flooding it with a bunch of garbage but with the right stuff you can be compelled to never touch Paizo's books for feats, spells or classes for years. Pick up the most acclaimed things that pique your interest and you won't regret it. I've said this in other threads but every problem I've had with Pathfinder is completely fixed by third party material.
Then some options I appreciate because they shine when the context isn't just killing monsters for loot and spending the loot on gear to get better at killing more things. Pathfinder is an action game but there's more that can be done than that and tone and style can make or break niche options.
I only skimmed your post first time, then put in my reactionary two cents.
I am (still) Chaotic Good after all.
If you start shouting ABSOLUTE FREEDOM!, I'll slap you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you start shouting ABSOLUTE FREEDOM!, I'll slap you.I only skimmed your post first time, then put in my reactionary two cents.
I am (still) Chaotic Good after all.
STEVE HOLT!!
|
That divide is the problem. Why is it acceptable that some players are punished for making character choices over optimization choices?
Punished by whom or what? That's not a rhetorical question, because I assume that a player is new to a game (so he may need someone explain to him what the consequences of his choices could mean and probably helping the player to achieve what he wants), or he knows the game and makes conscious choices. The only problem I've seen arise is when a group assumes a certain measure of optimization and the GM reacts by upping the challenge. That's something that should be talked about before the game even starts. But as long as you are playing in the standard Paizo has set with its adventures, then Malwing is right in that most options are actually quite useful.
The inspiration you gain from an archetype might as well be gained from a book, comic or movie. Nothing mechanical in the archetype help you roleplay that archetype, the closest thing it has for that is a bit of flavor text, if that much. Thus an archetype adds nothing mechanical to the roleplay experience.
Inspiration can come from a lot of sources for sure. It can also come by looking through a rulebook, seeing an archetype and immediately picturing a character you'd be interested in playing (or using as an NPC). That happens to me all the time.
I disagree with the thought, that mechanics don't add to the roleplaying experience. I can play a standard Paladin with a certain character in mind. But this will probably not being the same character I envision when thinking about a Divine Defender or an Undead Scourge Paladin. And mechanics play a certain role in that I ask myself the question why my character would chose Shared Defense instead of Mercy and would form a bond with her armor rather than with her mount or weapon. And the answers may quite well inform my character's behaviour not only in combat but also in social situations. Also it plays a role that Shared defense improves the values for all adjacent allies (instead of a single ally of my choice, for example). I'll roleplay this skill according to the mechanic involved, so again, it adds (or at least changes) the roleplay experience.
My ideas may totally change between now and next year, so it's possible for me to play mechanically identical characters in totally different ways, but still, the idea I have at a certain point may as well root in a certain rule option as in a book, in music or in a movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else feel like some of the bloat comes from them explicitly locking away some neat ideas behind archetypes? The Paladin's Bond ability, for example. Core gets the mount or the weapon, but archetypes add options like shield or holy symbol, which I see meshing wonderfully with some concepts without the weird archetype swaps on top of it. Ranger Fighting Styles. Stunning Fist replacements. All bound tightly to archetypes that people look at and go "Why would I want this?" (Even if they only feel that way in regards to a particular character)
|
|
When you get eaten by a monster
Well, I haven't seen this happen too often and when it happened, it mostly happened in games, where optimization was involved and (as I hinted at) the GM reacted by upping the challenge (which ever has the risk of making an encounter too hard). The risk of death is part of the game and can happen to the best characters and most of the options in the rulebooks don't make you automatically get eaten by a monster. That's why I consider most of the options in the book to be at least playable.
Anyone else feel like some of the bloat comes from them explicitly locking away some neat ideas behind archetypes? The Paladin's Bond ability, for example. Core gets the mount or the weapon, but archetypes add options like shield or holy symbol, which I see meshing wonderfully with some concepts without the weird archetype swaps on top of it. Ranger Fighting Styles. Stunning Fist replacements. All bound tightly to archetypes that people look at and go "Why would I want this?" (Even if they only feel that way in regards to a particular character)
I think this is more attributed to compatibility induced hindsight. Archetypes are an amazing innovation for the game but I think if the game were rebooted in a significant way each class would have a suite of talents or Bloodline-like packages to insert the things that archetypes usually cover. But archetypes just kind of worked around what was had so can be awkward sometimes, especially given how some abilities have to be valued. The value of abilities is very different between players and the Paizo staff so some things are fairly balanced on a numerical level while not useful on a practical level. Then some things just slip through that are worthless for whatever reason. As I said before I don't run into enough of them where I'm livid about it, but I'm not too needy about it. For example; The Eldritch Scion archetype for the Magus is probably my favorite archetype for the Magus and most of the time I feel like I'm the only one that likes it so much. Practically its outright worse than vanilla Magus but I still think it's functional and adds a lot of fun possibilities.
|
|
Anyone else feel like some of the bloat comes from them explicitly locking away some neat ideas behind archetypes?
That's the beauty of private games though. I don't have to follow the rules and when a player wants to bond his paladin with his shield or armor, I've no qualms about allowing that (unless I'd feel that a player tried to cherrypick, but luckily, that's a problem I didn't have so far).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else feel like some of the bloat comes from them explicitly locking away some neat ideas behind archetypes? The Paladin's Bond ability, for example. Core gets the mount or the weapon, but archetypes add options like shield or holy symbol, which I see meshing wonderfully with some concepts without the weird archetype swaps on top of it. Ranger Fighting Styles. Stunning Fist replacements. All bound tightly to archetypes that people look at and go "Why would I want this?" (Even if they only feel that way in regards to a particular character)
It's a game balance issue.
It's almost impossible to have an option to trade for with a core class ability which isn't either a better or worse option. So - instead of trying too hard for balance on that single trade - they balance the archetype as a whole.
Sure - this archetype trades away A, B, & C. The A trade is awesome! Everyone should get that! The B trade is okay, and the C trade is weak-sauce. All of it together is pretty well balanced with the base class. Being able to make only the A trade is not.
The only archetype that lets you cherry-pick your trades is the qinggong - and that was really a stealth buff for the monk class.
Note: I'm not saying that the balance gotten this way is perfect - and there are some rather poor examples of archetype balance which I could name. I'm just arguing for the design concept as a balancing mechanism.
Contributor
|
Anyone else feel like some of the bloat comes from them explicitly locking away some neat ideas behind archetypes? The Paladin's Bond ability, for example. Core gets the mount or the weapon, but archetypes add options like shield or holy symbol, which I see meshing wonderfully with some concepts without the weird archetype swaps on top of it. Ranger Fighting Styles. Stunning Fist replacements. All bound tightly to archetypes that people look at and go "Why would I want this?" (Even if they only feel that way in regards to a particular character)It's a game balance issue.
It's almost impossible to have an option to trade for with a core class ability which isn't either a better or worse option. So - instead of trying too hard for balance on that single trade - they balance the archetype as a whole.
Sure - this archetype trades away A, B, & C. The A trade is awesome! Everyone should get that! The B trade is okay, and the C trade is weak-sauce. All of it together is pretty well balanced with the base class. Being able to make only the A trade is not.
The only archetype that lets you cherry-pick your trades is the qinggong - and that was really a stealth buff for the monk class.
Note: I'm not saying that the balance gotten this way is perfect - and there are some rather poor examples of archetype balance which I could name. I'm just arguing for the design concept as a balancing mechanism.
This is what I think about every time I see someone hate on the empyreal knight because of the divine grace trade.
Empyreal knight probably should have been 'gains celestial' and made something else a double swap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't think Pathfinder is bloated. I mean, sure, there are a few less than useful feats or abilities in the books, but I believe the vast majority of material can be useful. It can be daunting to see the sheer number of feats, but I think it's better to have the ability to ignore them for the first few games, and to slowly bring in new books as confidence grows, than to simply not have them at all.
I played 5e recently, and it made me realised how much I like the number of options in Pathfinder; I used to think that Pathfinder was bloated, but after seeing some interesting (and non-optimised) builds, coupled with finding 5e way too bare bones for my liking, I think it has a good number of options.
|
I do think Pathfinder is bloated. It has loads and loads of rules, classes, races. Personally, I won't get to play with most of those stuff (I only get to play rarely), but it does make the idea of running stuff in PFS somewhat unappealing.
I like the base system, even the core rules give a lot of options, APG gives lots, but with all these other books its loads and loads, a bit too much for my taste.
As mentioned way above, I got tired of spending more time polishing my PC according to the rules than I did playing at the table top.
I am rather amazed at this. I sincerely do not know how one can do this.
|
I loved the complete book of Elves. That book was game evolving. The author of that book should be view as visionary. When we got it we house rule the crap out the game based on the Complete Book of Elves. Those blade single weapon proficiencies became feats, though we didn't call them that. We made all kind of crazy bonus combat things using he rules for the Blade Singer as the bench mark. Worked great. Then 3rd edition came and feats were there.I also think bloat is personal era dependent. Back in the dim dark past there was really only the red books, and then Expert. From there I moved to 1st ed. and brought all the books (PHB, UA, DMG, MM, MM2, Fiend Folio, and Deities and Demigods). I guess you could class UA as 1st ed. bloat? Then moving onto 2nd ed. I brought EVERYTHING that TSR spat out, campaign settings, 'complete' books the works. That was bloat of the first order. Even the author of The Complete Book of Elves has an apology on YouTube video for that piece of crap. Still I was in my early twenties and bloat was good, more options, more rules, more, more, more!!!
Now in my mid-40's bracket I can't be bothered with all that b&!*~%!s, I want simple straight forward rules. If I was twenty again I would be begging Paizo to release more 'bloat'. As it is I care little for the splat books these days, interesting to read but I don't really care to learn the new rules. Back then I had no money but shed loads of time, now I have money but no time. Ironic...
20-25 years ago I had a completely different view of what I wanted out of an RPG. Great thing is with an RPG you can play the way you like and Paizo are unlikely to send out the police because you aren't playing the 'one true way'.
2 cents,
S.
Go to Book of Elves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind options, what I don't like is minor variations on a theme for classes that basically fill the same niche. If I want a Witch I can have one using either a Wizard/Sorcerer or Cleric - or a multiclass of these. Hexes you cry - er, I think the spell Curse also fits that bill. Charm Person seems right for a Witch also. I don't think 'but it uses a different stat' is reason enough for a whole new class.
Do we have a STR based caster yet? What about Brute Caster: using strength alone the caster rips open the very fabric of the universe spilling motes of raw magical energy. These motes are molded in the vice-like grip of the Brute Caster releasing the spell! Now we just find all the spells that fit the strength theme and write down a few level abilities and class done. Pad out with fluff and slap $39.99 + postage on it.
I would far rather Paizo focus its considerable talents on awesome adventure paths, adventures, and perhaps setting material (on the fence about this).
My only real PF gripe, the rogue/thief - give it back the uniqueness of abilities it had in 1e/2e. 3e did a huge disservice by making 'thieves abilities' effectively open to everyone.
|
|
As mentioned way above, I got tired of spending more time polishing my PC according to the rules than I did playing at the table top.I am rather amazed at this. I sincerely do not know how one can do this.DM's style exhibits strong OCD. The D in OCD stands for "disorder" in regards to things the subject is O/C about.
It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent). Failure to know stuff meant your character would suffer or die in ways you overlooked.
PC backstory was required yet also subject to similar scrutiny (though how to apply campaign lore to your PC was more than a little hinky).
Think of it like studying for a test where the max score allowed was 40% with no curve applied. Who wants to beat their head against a wall for an "F-" kudos?
5E makes it a little hard to play the system in that way.
That sounds like more of a DM issue than a system issue.
I changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder because Pathfinder all but promised to not act like WoTC. However, Pathfinder is now just like WoTC with a ton of new books I just have to have (granted the books are addicting). At first everything was great, but now the books are full of fluff and feats and crap that I'll never use.
My fear is this...everyone will ditch Pathfinder like they did 3.5, and switch to a new system. When that happens, in order to play and interact I'll have to follow. Then I'll end up spending another $1000 dollars and have another 200 pounds of books. I mean really, my stack of Pathfinder books is like coming up on 3 feet tall already...a couple more feet, and it'll literally be 3.5 version 2.
|
|
People just don't understand that 4E was merely a different way to do the same thing as Pathfinder. The end results are the same, only the dressing is different.
My experience was that the end result wasn't the same. Most of the time in Pathfinder, combats are over in a round or two. (I enjoy the epic ones that last enough rounds that you have to keep track of rounds/level durations for spells of 8th level casters.)
4e combats were slogs that lasted half a gaming session as we slowly whittled down the monster's massive amount of HP.
My experience may not be typical, but that was what seemed to happen every time.
That sounds like more of a DM issue than a system issue.As mentioned way above, I got tired of spending more time polishing my PC according to the rules than I did playing at the table top.I am rather amazed at this. I sincerely do not know how one can do this.DM's style exhibits strong OCD. The D in OCD stands for "disorder" in regards to things the subject is O/C about.
It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent). Failure to know stuff meant your character would suffer or die in ways you overlooked.
PC backstory was required yet also subject to similar scrutiny (though how to apply campaign lore to your PC was more than a little hinky).
Think of it like studying for a test where the max score allowed was 40% with no curve applied. Who wants to beat their head against a wall for an "F-" kudos?
5E makes it a little hard to play the system in that way.
Yeah...this does not match my experiences as either a DM or as a player. I am pretty sure your problem isn't the system but the guy running the games.
That sounds like more of a DM issue than a system issue.
<Tweet!> False Dichotomy! Five yard penalty, replay the down.
The point of a system is to provide structure so that everyone knows and expects what's going on. The point of a DM is to interpret the system structure so that everyone has a fun time. You can't really separate the two -- a good DM should compensate for a bad system, and a good system should compensate for a bad DM.
For example, "It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent)." This is a lot easier when the rules are few, simple, and clear, which is one of the reasons that the Plain English movement exists (see also here). It's much easier for everyone to follow what they understand, and for them to understand what's designed with comprehensibility (instead of comprehensiveness) in mind.
The point of a system is to provide structure so that everyone knows and expects what's going on. The point of a DM is to interpret the system structure so that everyone has a fun time. You can't really separate the two -- a good DM should compensate for a bad system, and a good system should compensate for a bad DM.
Except that GM would be volatile with any rules hard game....
For example, "It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent)." This is a lot easier when the rules are few, simple, and clear, which is one of the reasons that the Plain English movement exists (see also here). It's much easier for everyone to follow what they understand, and for them to understand what's designed with comprehensibility (instead of comprehensiveness) in mind.
Strangely, I've found that so far I've disliked plainlanguage games. 5e seemed to "ask your GM" and the others were so rules light I just could not comprehend the point of the game beyond simply running freeform.
|
|
My experience was that the end result wasn't the same. Most of the time in Pathfinder, combats are over in a round or two. (I enjoy the epic ones that last enough rounds that you have to keep track of rounds/level durations for spells of 8th level casters.)
4e combats were slogs that lasted half a gaming session as we slowly whittled down the monster's massive amount of HP.
My experience may not be typical, but that was what seemed to happen every time.
Your experience does not seem to address the difference in time per rounds. I wonder just how many fights actually lasted longer in 4E than 3.x when measured in session time rather than rounds. Remember that our three round combat in Tears at Bitter Manor still took almost a quarter of our session.
|
|
That sounds like more of a DM issue than a system issue.<Tweet!> False Dichotomy! Five yard penalty, replay the down.
The point of a system is to provide structure so that everyone knows and expects what's going on. The point of a DM is to interpret the system structure so that everyone has a fun time. You can't really separate the two -- a good DM should compensate for a bad system, and a good system should compensate for a bad DM.
For example, "It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent)." This is a lot easier when the rules are few, simple, and clear, which is one of the reasons that the Plain English movement exists (see also here). It's much easier for everyone to follow what they understand, and for them to understand what's designed with comprehensibility (instead of comprehensiveness) in mind.
And argument in and of itself can only be made if one ignore the social contract between the players participating in the game. The purpose of the game is entertainment. If the rules of the game are used as a bludgeon on the participants, and the contract is voided, then the problem is with one or more of the participants.
So the false dichotomy argument clam is invalid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on guys, I'm over here now, try to keep up.
|
|
That sounds like more of a DM issue than a system issue.<Tweet!> False Dichotomy! Five yard penalty, replay the down.
The point of a system is to provide structure so that everyone knows and expects what's going on. The point of a DM is to interpret the system structure so that everyone has a fun time. You can't really separate the two -- a good DM should compensate for a bad system, and a good system should compensate for a bad DM.
For example, "It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent)." This is a lot easier when the rules are few, simple, and clear, which is one of the reasons that the Plain English movement exists (see also here). It's much easier for everyone to follow what they understand, and for them to understand what's designed with comprehensibility (instead of comprehensiveness) in mind.
Except that the post I commented on described a DM who went further than the normal rules - creating their own & judging how well the players understood the DM's unwritten 'balance' rules.
When someone changes the system's rules, they can't then turn around and blame the system for any problems that doing so causes.
|
|
For example, "It was required of the players that they understand all permutations of all pertinent rules (and all the rules were pertinent)." This is a lot easier when the rules are few, simple, and clear, which is one of the reasons that the Plain English movement exists (see also here). It's much easier for everyone to follow what they understand, and for them to understand what's designed with comprehensibility (instead of comprehensiveness) in mind.Strangely, I've found that so far I've disliked plainlanguage games. 5e seemed to "ask your GM" and the others were so rules light I just could not comprehend the point of the game beyond simply running freeform.
Yeah - I think it's a misinterpretation of Plain English to say that it can only be done with simplistic rules. Plain English is so that things don't have circular logic and 'legalese'.
I can see the appeal of some things in 5e - but the 'DM may I" isn't one of them. As to other rules light systems - I just don't like them much. Tactics etc. are a large part of why I play RPGs. To make such tactics meaningful there need to be a decent chunk of rules to support them.
|
|
Tactics etc. are a large part of why I play RPGs. To make such tactics meaningful there need to be a decent chunk of rules to support them.
And that is a perfectly valid reason. 'D&D' started as an extension to a tabletop war-game the broke away completely in 2nd, headed back that way in 3.xe/PF/4e (to varying degrees) then 5e went back the way of 2e. All comes down to what you are use to. The largest number of years I played a single RPG system was 2e D&D where trust in the DM and the idea that the it isn't PCs vs DM was paramount. I do completely understand the need for codified rules and grid based combats when you are playing with unknown people (PFS etc).