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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5988141" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>That's at least getting into a mechanical distinction. The former is what I've gotten used to (from discussions of Hero System) calling an 'effects based' system. The advantages of such systems are myriad. They use fewer mechanical sub-systems to model the same range of things, they can be expanded with few or no additional mechanics, they can be turned to a variety of genres or tuned to a variety of styles with relative ease. The only disadvantage - and it's a doozy - is the level of abstraction between the mechanic that resolves the effect, and the 'special effect' that causes it to happen. In a mechanical (gamist) sense, what's 'really happening' is the end result effect, and in a narrative or simulation sense, what's 'really happening' is the special effect. </p><p></p><p>In Hero, for instance, the rules for designing the mechanic are detailed and fairly precise (there's some room for GM-approved hand-waving when it comes to limitation), while the rules for the special effect are prettymuch anything-goes - but /both/ are highly customizeable. The GM, to paint a certain sort of genre or campaign, can always limit what powers are available or what special effects they can be used to model, as well as how powerful ('Active Points') a given power can be. And, there are powers and limitations that work based on special effects, with values the DM bases on how common that special effect will be in his campaign, so you can actually customize the degree of interaction between mechanic and F/X you like - if you've sufficient mastery of the system (and that's another doozy).</p><p></p><p>4e is not so committedly nor so consistently effects-based as Hero. While they both use the term 'power,' for instance, a Hero power is a building-block that can be customized to the nth degree, while a Hero power is a complete character action that you either choose or don't choose. Conversely, a Hero 'special effect' is chosen when the power is created, and can be have some reference to how it interacts with other (specific) powers and any power with specific limitations, based on how 'common' the DM deems the F/X, while flavor text in 4e is casually mutable and has no bearing on mechanical resolution save by DM fiat overriding the rules. And, outside of powers, Hero remains consistently effects-based (your STR could represent musculature, no-range telekinesis, bionics, power armor, or a magic belt, for instance), while 4e, beyond power and character description, largely drops the concept with respect to stats, skills, and other character abilities.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can understand people not liking Hero, it's an enormously complex, terribly abstract system , with some odd foibles, and takes, IMX, a year of attempted play to even really grasp, and who knows how long to 'master.' Plus, it has some real problems, from a few broken mechanics that have become enshrined (like the KA 'stun Lotto'), to it's bloated open-ended skill system. I can even understand them not liking it /because/ it's effects-based, because it is so relentlessly effects-based. </p><p></p><p>4e, I don't see the turn-off so much. The effects-based component (powers) is not that hard to ignore and has little impact on the playability of the game, and it is an easy to pick up, easy to run game that doesn't much punish 'lack of system mastery' early on, while having enough breadth, choice, and customizeability that system mastery inevitably creeps in to hold the interest of the more jaded player (<em>comme moi</em>).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5988141, member: 996"] That's at least getting into a mechanical distinction. The former is what I've gotten used to (from discussions of Hero System) calling an 'effects based' system. The advantages of such systems are myriad. They use fewer mechanical sub-systems to model the same range of things, they can be expanded with few or no additional mechanics, they can be turned to a variety of genres or tuned to a variety of styles with relative ease. The only disadvantage - and it's a doozy - is the level of abstraction between the mechanic that resolves the effect, and the 'special effect' that causes it to happen. In a mechanical (gamist) sense, what's 'really happening' is the end result effect, and in a narrative or simulation sense, what's 'really happening' is the special effect. In Hero, for instance, the rules for designing the mechanic are detailed and fairly precise (there's some room for GM-approved hand-waving when it comes to limitation), while the rules for the special effect are prettymuch anything-goes - but /both/ are highly customizeable. The GM, to paint a certain sort of genre or campaign, can always limit what powers are available or what special effects they can be used to model, as well as how powerful ('Active Points') a given power can be. And, there are powers and limitations that work based on special effects, with values the DM bases on how common that special effect will be in his campaign, so you can actually customize the degree of interaction between mechanic and F/X you like - if you've sufficient mastery of the system (and that's another doozy). 4e is not so committedly nor so consistently effects-based as Hero. While they both use the term 'power,' for instance, a Hero power is a building-block that can be customized to the nth degree, while a Hero power is a complete character action that you either choose or don't choose. Conversely, a Hero 'special effect' is chosen when the power is created, and can be have some reference to how it interacts with other (specific) powers and any power with specific limitations, based on how 'common' the DM deems the F/X, while flavor text in 4e is casually mutable and has no bearing on mechanical resolution save by DM fiat overriding the rules. And, outside of powers, Hero remains consistently effects-based (your STR could represent musculature, no-range telekinesis, bionics, power armor, or a magic belt, for instance), while 4e, beyond power and character description, largely drops the concept with respect to stats, skills, and other character abilities. I can understand people not liking Hero, it's an enormously complex, terribly abstract system , with some odd foibles, and takes, IMX, a year of attempted play to even really grasp, and who knows how long to 'master.' Plus, it has some real problems, from a few broken mechanics that have become enshrined (like the KA 'stun Lotto'), to it's bloated open-ended skill system. I can even understand them not liking it /because/ it's effects-based, because it is so relentlessly effects-based. 4e, I don't see the turn-off so much. The effects-based component (powers) is not that hard to ignore and has little impact on the playability of the game, and it is an easy to pick up, easy to run game that doesn't much punish 'lack of system mastery' early on, while having enough breadth, choice, and customizeability that system mastery inevitably creeps in to hold the interest of the more jaded player ([i]comme moi[/i]). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top