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
EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next
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="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5916825" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>Maybe. I'm not sure the lines cannot be less rigid and the system more integrated. I like the idea of there being more options in each area that allow for greater diversity from each area rather than a sort of separate but equal policy of how themes, classes, races (I prefer "species" as each is made up of mutliple races), and backgrounds will interact. So, if class is mostly about combat, and backgrounds engender the roleplaying aspects of the roleplaying game, though themes can be about either . . . but it is worth noting that someone not taking a combat theme will be less combat proficient (which seems obvious but seemed important enough to the design process to be pointed out) . . . I'm not sure I see this segregation design as being as flexible as it could be if class, race, theme and background could all speak to the three pillars. I guess it might depend on which is the corner stone of character building. From my own experience, background seems like it needs to be the foundation, inclusive of race, and then as a character becomes part of the setting, through theme, class eventually follows. Class becomes more of a byproduct of a character's growth, even if much of that growth occurs during chargen. I think that keeps roleplay at the fore and allows that combat is simply one of many activities of the characters in-game. It certainly would seem backwards to think of class first when character building in anything but a combat focused game particularly if class is going to be the primary bastion of combat related elements in a roleplaying game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What you're describing is a lowest common denominator approach to the design rather than focusing the design on something more and allowing those kill-things-and-take-stuff aspects to be subsumed during the process of design toward the greater goal. As you point out, that approach has been done before to good effect and otherwise, and the hope is that the leader in the field will have a bit of a higher purpose while trying to produce a really good (even great!), unifying edition.</p><p></p><p>I know, I know. They are a business with a bottomline. We can all be aware of that and still hope that the big dog in the niche market is hiring the best designers available to put out something more than just a game designed to try and capture the largest possible market share. That's a good business goal, and I don't think it is wrong to try and achieve that, but lofty design goals can often dovetail with lofty business goals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5916825, member: 10479"] Maybe. I'm not sure the lines cannot be less rigid and the system more integrated. I like the idea of there being more options in each area that allow for greater diversity from each area rather than a sort of separate but equal policy of how themes, classes, races (I prefer "species" as each is made up of mutliple races), and backgrounds will interact. So, if class is mostly about combat, and backgrounds engender the roleplaying aspects of the roleplaying game, though themes can be about either . . . but it is worth noting that someone not taking a combat theme will be less combat proficient (which seems obvious but seemed important enough to the design process to be pointed out) . . . I'm not sure I see this segregation design as being as flexible as it could be if class, race, theme and background could all speak to the three pillars. I guess it might depend on which is the corner stone of character building. From my own experience, background seems like it needs to be the foundation, inclusive of race, and then as a character becomes part of the setting, through theme, class eventually follows. Class becomes more of a byproduct of a character's growth, even if much of that growth occurs during chargen. I think that keeps roleplay at the fore and allows that combat is simply one of many activities of the characters in-game. It certainly would seem backwards to think of class first when character building in anything but a combat focused game particularly if class is going to be the primary bastion of combat related elements in a roleplaying game. What you're describing is a lowest common denominator approach to the design rather than focusing the design on something more and allowing those kill-things-and-take-stuff aspects to be subsumed during the process of design toward the greater goal. As you point out, that approach has been done before to good effect and otherwise, and the hope is that the leader in the field will have a bit of a higher purpose while trying to produce a really good (even great!), unifying edition. I know, I know. They are a business with a bottomline. We can all be aware of that and still hope that the big dog in the niche market is hiring the best designers available to put out something more than just a game designed to try and capture the largest possible market share. That's a good business goal, and I don't think it is wrong to try and achieve that, but lofty design goals can often dovetail with lofty business goals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next
Top