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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Even more Mike Mearls
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="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3930119" data-attributes="member: 1003"><p>When the game is so simple it actively impedes role-playing, that's a problem. </p><p></p><p>Chess, for instance, boils down to being about taking the other guy's king. Because it's so simple, and the ways by which you're allowed to take the king are so limited, there are no opportunities for roleplaying. Clearly the rules of the game and the ability to roleplay cannot be separated.</p><p></p><p>Also, the last three posters have all totally missed my point with those examples (which probably my fault), so let me try this again: </p><p></p><p>Mearls seems to be under the impression that Sunder somehow takes away my control of the world as a DM. Well, frankly, that's not a control I want to have. I don't dictate stories to my PC's; I try to destroy the world, and they try to stop me, and later we tell stories about how it all went down. Within that epic battle between the forces of light and darkness, tactics are used. Tactics like Sunder; but also tactics like "Shoot the fool who brought a scimitar to a gunfight" or "Sunder the One Ring with my axe."</p><p></p><p>Battles over the fate of the world (or just the village of Hommlet) are not fought in a gentlemanly manner. There are no rules of engagement. It's "I will do anything to oppose you, and there are no rules." If an NPC (foolishly) vests all of his power in a vessel or object, he gets what he deserves when the PC's throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom. Likewise, the reverse is also true. The Fighter who puts all of his resources into a sword is taking a risk that it gets Sundered. But it's a risk that he chooses to accept.</p><p></p><p>Mike's argument seems to me to be "Sunder is lame because, as we all know, a PC's weapons are harder to fix and replace than the character is. I mean, between Cure Light Wounds and Raise Dead, even death and dismemberment aren't a problem! But take a Fighter's +4 Longsword away, and he's a chump. After all, everyone knows the joke: what do you call a PC without his gear? Lunch. Ha ha! I love that one ... </p><p></p><p>So, rather than fix item dependence (which is hard), we're going to take away your ability to hurt items (which is easy)."</p><p></p><p>Taking away Sunder does not take away the DM's control of the world. It just reduces the tactical options available to the PC's, and reduces the complexity and depth of the tactical combat space. Those are bad things.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3930119, member: 1003"] When the game is so simple it actively impedes role-playing, that's a problem. Chess, for instance, boils down to being about taking the other guy's king. Because it's so simple, and the ways by which you're allowed to take the king are so limited, there are no opportunities for roleplaying. Clearly the rules of the game and the ability to roleplay cannot be separated. Also, the last three posters have all totally missed my point with those examples (which probably my fault), so let me try this again: Mearls seems to be under the impression that Sunder somehow takes away my control of the world as a DM. Well, frankly, that's not a control I want to have. I don't dictate stories to my PC's; I try to destroy the world, and they try to stop me, and later we tell stories about how it all went down. Within that epic battle between the forces of light and darkness, tactics are used. Tactics like Sunder; but also tactics like "Shoot the fool who brought a scimitar to a gunfight" or "Sunder the One Ring with my axe." Battles over the fate of the world (or just the village of Hommlet) are not fought in a gentlemanly manner. There are no rules of engagement. It's "I will do anything to oppose you, and there are no rules." If an NPC (foolishly) vests all of his power in a vessel or object, he gets what he deserves when the PC's throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom. Likewise, the reverse is also true. The Fighter who puts all of his resources into a sword is taking a risk that it gets Sundered. But it's a risk that he chooses to accept. Mike's argument seems to me to be "Sunder is lame because, as we all know, a PC's weapons are harder to fix and replace than the character is. I mean, between Cure Light Wounds and Raise Dead, even death and dismemberment aren't a problem! But take a Fighter's +4 Longsword away, and he's a chump. After all, everyone knows the joke: what do you call a PC without his gear? Lunch. Ha ha! I love that one ... So, rather than fix item dependence (which is hard), we're going to take away your ability to hurt items (which is easy)." Taking away Sunder does not take away the DM's control of the world. It just reduces the tactical options available to the PC's, and reduces the complexity and depth of the tactical combat space. Those are bad things. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Even more Mike Mearls
Top