Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Blog: Reacting to the Reaction
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5954971" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Well, along that route, you could go all the way to "you have X "action points" per turn; an attack costs A points, moving 5 feet costs B points, Shifting 5 feet costs C points, drawing a weapon costs D points... and so on. But I think that a simpler breakdown has a few advantages (as well as just being simpler! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> ).</p><p></p><p>I thin it's more than that. If you have "DM may I do this as well?" you get an answer - either yes or no, it doesn't matter - and this either becomes a rule or you have an arbitrary and nonsensical game. Basically, if, the next time you ask to do the same thing, you get the same answer, then you have a rule - which should have been a rule to begin with. If, on the other hand, the answer is different (for no good reason - a good reason would just mean "there is a rule, but it's a bit more complicated than always yes or always no") then you have a broken game.</p><p></p><p>Could the system leave most of the actual rules for the DM (and maybe players) to make up as they went along? Sure - but I think it would just be better if they gave rules - good rules that have been considered in relation to all the other rules and properly playtested - from the beginning, in the published ruleset.</p><p></p><p>Rules "gaps" in a playtest version actually don't worry me - you have to start a playtest somewhere. It's the fact that Mike Mearls seems to have set a design aim to actually deliberately have partial rules that bothers me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5954971, member: 27160"] Well, along that route, you could go all the way to "you have X "action points" per turn; an attack costs A points, moving 5 feet costs B points, Shifting 5 feet costs C points, drawing a weapon costs D points... and so on. But I think that a simpler breakdown has a few advantages (as well as just being simpler! ;) ). I thin it's more than that. If you have "DM may I do this as well?" you get an answer - either yes or no, it doesn't matter - and this either becomes a rule or you have an arbitrary and nonsensical game. Basically, if, the next time you ask to do the same thing, you get the same answer, then you have a rule - which should have been a rule to begin with. If, on the other hand, the answer is different (for no good reason - a good reason would just mean "there is a rule, but it's a bit more complicated than always yes or always no") then you have a broken game. Could the system leave most of the actual rules for the DM (and maybe players) to make up as they went along? Sure - but I think it would just be better if they gave rules - good rules that have been considered in relation to all the other rules and properly playtested - from the beginning, in the published ruleset. Rules "gaps" in a playtest version actually don't worry me - you have to start a playtest somewhere. It's the fact that Mike Mearls seems to have set a design aim to actually deliberately have partial rules that bothers me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Blog: Reacting to the Reaction
Top