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
How much should 5e aim at balance?
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5984202" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Not at all. In the foundations GSN essays, for example, Ron Edwards identifies several systems that lend themselves well to multiple playstyles:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* Marvel Superheroes (TSR 80s version) explicitly supports narrativsit and gamist play;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Champions was used for play in all 3 modes;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Tunnels &Trolls as written, aims at gamist play, but apparently was played by some in a more narrativist fashion.</p><p></p><p>I personally think that 4e lends itself well to certain versions of all 3 modes (after many discussions of this with a range of other posters on these boards):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* High-concept simulationism - let's see what happens as my guy progresses from local hero to epic demi-god (fits well with adventure-path play and strong GM plot authority);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Light gamism - look at the cool tricks I can get my guy to do! - and I didn't even lose any surges doing it! (@Balesir plays 4e roughly in this sort of way);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Vanilla narrativism - the war between order and chaos is coming - will my guy side with the gods (even Bane? Asmodeus?) or with the primordials (and Gruumsh? demons? Tharizdun?)? This is my preferred way of playing 4e (@Campbell has also talked in some recent threads about this approach to 4e).</p><p></p><p>What I think 4e doesn't support well is purist-for-system (sometimes called process) simulation - because its mechanics are very metagamey, and obviously so. Nor do I think it supports Gygaxian "skilled play" gamism, because that depends on making the operational elements of exploration the focus of play, and 4e downplays or eliminates much of this sort of stuff. Gygaxian play is also about minimising risks confronted while maximising treasure, whereas 4e is much more about confronting risks (but then using skilled mechanical play to get through them) and about predetermined treasure parcels (they're not really rewards, but more like part of the PC build mechanics).</p><p></p><p>Not remotely offended, but don't completely agree.</p><p></p><p>I want to add - <em>without a doubt</em>, 3E was the version of D&D most aimed at supporting simulationist play - just look at the changes to saving throws, for example, from a metagame mechanic to a process simulation.</p><p></p><p>But interestingly - and fitting with [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION] and [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]'s comments upthread - the game is not really designed to support full-fledged simulationist play. If you start exploring the system, and the fantasy world that it implicitly creates, in ways that go beyond AD&D expectations, the game breaks fairly easily.</p><p></p><p>I think 3E is therefore a curious thing - intended to satisfy a certain sort of simulationist aesthetic, while being used for a less-than-fully simulationist purpose - AD&D-style gamism with a heavy exploratory chassis.</p><p></p><p>I think 4e is extremely diffrent in feel from 3E. It doesn't cater to a process-simulation aesthetic at all - it is blatantly built on metagame mechanics.</p><p></p><p>But it doesn't support traditional D&D gamisim either, because you get XP just for turning up and playing the game (look at the rules for awarding XP, including the DMG 2 - it's not like AD&D, where you have to actually hunt out the XP, in the form of treasure), and likewise treasure turns up in pre-packaged parcels.</p><p></p><p>As I said above, I think it can support a "lighter" form of gamism, based on exploiting those featurse of the game that are well-suited for "step on up" - showing off the cool stuff you can do with your PC.</p><p></p><p>For me, 4e is a breath of fresh air because it lets me play fairly traditional D&D (in terms of the tropes and themes) in a narrativist way without the system getting in the way.</p><p></p><p>I agree the game is ambiguous on who has plot authority, but I think that, as a whole (including the empahsis on scene framing; player choices actually mattering to action resolution and scene outcomes in either combat or skill challenges; player-designed quests; players getting to choose what thematic aspects to foreground via choice of race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, and the like; etc) that it most naturally supports plot as emergent from play, rather than predetermined and managed by the GM.</p><p></p><p>I think this is one point of breakdown in the AD&D to 3E transition. In AD&D there basically is no such thing as character customisation: you roll your stats, then do the best you can with them.</p><p></p><p>Tunnels & Trolls takes this to its maximum limit: only PCs with good stats can wield the best weapons, or enter the best classes. Other PCs <em>will</em> be mechanically less effective.</p><p></p><p>The oddity in 3E is that, instead of the winning or losing in PC build turning on luck, it starts to turn on familiarity with the range of choices and their interactions ("system mastery"). I agree with you that this is bad for the game - whereas as the more classic D&D/T&T approach is fine for a certain sort of light-hearted fun, I think.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5984202, member: 42582"] Not at all. In the foundations GSN essays, for example, Ron Edwards identifies several systems that lend themselves well to multiple playstyles: [indent]* Marvel Superheroes (TSR 80s version) explicitly supports narrativsit and gamist play; * Champions was used for play in all 3 modes; * Tunnels &Trolls as written, aims at gamist play, but apparently was played by some in a more narrativist fashion.[/indent] I personally think that 4e lends itself well to certain versions of all 3 modes (after many discussions of this with a range of other posters on these boards): [indent]* High-concept simulationism - let's see what happens as my guy progresses from local hero to epic demi-god (fits well with adventure-path play and strong GM plot authority); * Light gamism - look at the cool tricks I can get my guy to do! - and I didn't even lose any surges doing it! (@Balesir plays 4e roughly in this sort of way); * Vanilla narrativism - the war between order and chaos is coming - will my guy side with the gods (even Bane? Asmodeus?) or with the primordials (and Gruumsh? demons? Tharizdun?)? This is my preferred way of playing 4e (@Campbell has also talked in some recent threads about this approach to 4e).[/indent] What I think 4e doesn't support well is purist-for-system (sometimes called process) simulation - because its mechanics are very metagamey, and obviously so. Nor do I think it supports Gygaxian "skilled play" gamism, because that depends on making the operational elements of exploration the focus of play, and 4e downplays or eliminates much of this sort of stuff. Gygaxian play is also about minimising risks confronted while maximising treasure, whereas 4e is much more about confronting risks (but then using skilled mechanical play to get through them) and about predetermined treasure parcels (they're not really rewards, but more like part of the PC build mechanics). Not remotely offended, but don't completely agree. I want to add - [I]without a doubt[/I], 3E was the version of D&D most aimed at supporting simulationist play - just look at the changes to saving throws, for example, from a metagame mechanic to a process simulation. But interestingly - and fitting with [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION] and [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]'s comments upthread - the game is not really designed to support full-fledged simulationist play. If you start exploring the system, and the fantasy world that it implicitly creates, in ways that go beyond AD&D expectations, the game breaks fairly easily. I think 3E is therefore a curious thing - intended to satisfy a certain sort of simulationist aesthetic, while being used for a less-than-fully simulationist purpose - AD&D-style gamism with a heavy exploratory chassis. I think 4e is extremely diffrent in feel from 3E. It doesn't cater to a process-simulation aesthetic at all - it is blatantly built on metagame mechanics. But it doesn't support traditional D&D gamisim either, because you get XP just for turning up and playing the game (look at the rules for awarding XP, including the DMG 2 - it's not like AD&D, where you have to actually hunt out the XP, in the form of treasure), and likewise treasure turns up in pre-packaged parcels. As I said above, I think it can support a "lighter" form of gamism, based on exploiting those featurse of the game that are well-suited for "step on up" - showing off the cool stuff you can do with your PC. For me, 4e is a breath of fresh air because it lets me play fairly traditional D&D (in terms of the tropes and themes) in a narrativist way without the system getting in the way. I agree the game is ambiguous on who has plot authority, but I think that, as a whole (including the empahsis on scene framing; player choices actually mattering to action resolution and scene outcomes in either combat or skill challenges; player-designed quests; players getting to choose what thematic aspects to foreground via choice of race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, and the like; etc) that it most naturally supports plot as emergent from play, rather than predetermined and managed by the GM. I think this is one point of breakdown in the AD&D to 3E transition. In AD&D there basically is no such thing as character customisation: you roll your stats, then do the best you can with them. Tunnels & Trolls takes this to its maximum limit: only PCs with good stats can wield the best weapons, or enter the best classes. Other PCs [I]will[/I] be mechanically less effective. The oddity in 3E is that, instead of the winning or losing in PC build turning on luck, it starts to turn on familiarity with the range of choices and their interactions ("system mastery"). I agree with you that this is bad for the game - whereas as the more classic D&D/T&T approach is fine for a certain sort of light-hearted fun, I think. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top