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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5894376" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>There are two main problems with it as a dial: </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's a lousy, half-baked dial.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It takes the spot of what could be a much better dial.</li> </ul><p>Technically, it isn't even a dial. It's some keywords that imply a dial might be in place, but we don't really even know that. However, since this is an article early in the design cycle, we can overlook that part.</p><p> </p><p>Here's a novel idea as a replacement (hinted at previously in this topic). Come up with a few sets of keywords. Make them keywords that describe things as they are, not based on some guesses as to how people think they fit into D&D. Then make your dials (or other controls) to work with those good keywords.</p><p> </p><p>Bad Dwarf Example Keywords: Common, Martial, Vaguely Scottish, Steampunk</p><p> </p><p>Good Dwarf Example Keywords: Stone, Crafty, Taciturn, Classic Fantasy</p><p> </p><p>The first set tells you some things that might happen, while implying a whole lot that isn't necessarily true. The last set tells you some widely viewed truths about dwarves--which you can then adapt to your game if you want. If you want a vaguely Scottish Steampunk dwarf because it fits your world, it isn't hard to slighlty twist Craft and Taciturn to get that. But of course you could go another route, too. </p><p> </p><p>Nor am I saying it is as open and shut as I wrote that. "Classic Fantasy" has some holes in it." But Common, Uncommon, and Rare is simply useless. It takes a whole host of assumptions and collapses them down into mush. There's no way to tag everything "correctly" with such keywords, because of that mushy nature.</p><p> </p><p>Furthermore, if you have several keywords for each creatures, describing it as it is, it provides all kinds of cross-reference possibilities that aren't there, otherwise. Maybe, I have a world where the "fey" are highly prominent, and thus want to include a lot of creatures with that tag, including elves. Or maybe I have a world that is more focused on a modern twist to the fey, and I only want such fey if they are also "Modern Fantasy". </p><p> </p><p>Finally, it is way too early in the design to be collapsing boundaries that much. Eventually, it has to happen, because even with a few sets of good keywords, we will have holes. But for now, would be better to "key" things as they are, and see which keywords emerge, than to come up with any old set and try to shoehorn the creatures into it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5894376, member: 54877"] There are two main problems with it as a dial: [LIST] [*]It's a lousy, half-baked dial. [*]It takes the spot of what could be a much better dial. [/LIST]Technically, it isn't even a dial. It's some keywords that imply a dial might be in place, but we don't really even know that. However, since this is an article early in the design cycle, we can overlook that part. Here's a novel idea as a replacement (hinted at previously in this topic). Come up with a few sets of keywords. Make them keywords that describe things as they are, not based on some guesses as to how people think they fit into D&D. Then make your dials (or other controls) to work with those good keywords. Bad Dwarf Example Keywords: Common, Martial, Vaguely Scottish, Steampunk Good Dwarf Example Keywords: Stone, Crafty, Taciturn, Classic Fantasy The first set tells you some things that might happen, while implying a whole lot that isn't necessarily true. The last set tells you some widely viewed truths about dwarves--which you can then adapt to your game if you want. If you want a vaguely Scottish Steampunk dwarf because it fits your world, it isn't hard to slighlty twist Craft and Taciturn to get that. But of course you could go another route, too. Nor am I saying it is as open and shut as I wrote that. "Classic Fantasy" has some holes in it." But Common, Uncommon, and Rare is simply useless. It takes a whole host of assumptions and collapses them down into mush. There's no way to tag everything "correctly" with such keywords, because of that mushy nature. Furthermore, if you have several keywords for each creatures, describing it as it is, it provides all kinds of cross-reference possibilities that aren't there, otherwise. Maybe, I have a world where the "fey" are highly prominent, and thus want to include a lot of creatures with that tag, including elves. Or maybe I have a world that is more focused on a modern twist to the fey, and I only want such fey if they are also "Modern Fantasy". Finally, it is way too early in the design to be collapsing boundaries that much. Eventually, it has to happen, because even with a few sets of good keywords, we will have holes. But for now, would be better to "key" things as they are, and see which keywords emerge, than to come up with any old set and try to shoehorn the creatures into it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
Top