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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
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: 7700540" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Every time you add a new option that players can take, there's a chance it has an unexpected/excessive synergy with some other pre-existing option. The more options you add, the more potential cross-interactions, and the more fragile, complex, and prone to 'breaking' (mainly in terms of balance, but even in terms of functionality) the game becomes. It's a consequence of the /kind/ of design D&D traditionally uses, in which each new option is to some extent mechanically novel (otherwise, why have it, right?) and is just added to the existing list (a 'list based system'). </p><p></p><p>One alternative to that is an 'effects based' system, that has a fixed number of mechanics that model end results of actions or abilities, rather than having many different sub-systems that bring about the same results in conceptually different ways. In an effects based system, an arrow, bullet, magic missile or death ray would all be 'the same' (in that they'd all be attacks that kill, though some might be a lot more potent examples), adding a 'fire bolt' to that system would be something the player could do by using those same mechanics to an appropriate power-level (number of points in a build system, for instance) and re-skinning them. That's not hypothetical, that's how Hero System worked going back to the first ed of Champions! c1981. (And, no, I'm not shilling for Hero System - it's last edition lost me, and I haven't played or run it this decade.)</p><p></p><p>It most certainly has not always been this way. It was arguably this way 20 or 30 (or 40!) years ago, but it's precisely because the last two edition offered many player options, and whether under the rubric of 'system mastery' or 'RAW' or 'balance' or 'Everything is Core' fostered this idea that players were /entitled/ to those options (thus 'player entitlement'). The current hostility to out of control expansion of player options is a reaction to those years. </p><p></p><p>Bloat is bloat, whichever side of the screen it happens on. And there was more to the 'players option' series than Tome of Magic. </p><p></p><p>Bloat is what drove me away from 2e about half-way through it's run. It had too much going on, and the system wasn't robust enough to handle it (compared, say, to 3e). Maybe playing Storyteller in the mean time acclimated me to faster paces of publication, so I was better able to tolerate 3e & 4e in spite of that, but 2e definitely suffered from the issue, quite dramatically. In that sense, for me, 5e really harkens back to early 1e and a book-a-year pace.</p><p></p><p>That was the 'land mine' in my analogy, yes. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>But, why take that risk? </p><p></p><p>It's all opt-in, yes, so pretty safe. The 'official'/core fighter options remain the original three. They've also been neatly designed to avoid any sort of cross-pollination - several UA fighter sub-classes get CS dice, but what they can do with them doesn't rub off on the BM, for instance. That'd bode well for 5e's robustness in the face of bloat if the same held true for other sub-classes, like the Bladesinger, but it doesn't. :shrug:</p><p></p><p>I think, with the 5e paradigm, they could afford to keep just the core 3 books 'evergreen,' and let supplements have a more limited life - go out of print, be legal in AL for a season or year or two, then gone. Something like that has been working for their CCG lines, I believe (I don't follow them closely, so I could be mistaken).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7700540, member: 996"] Every time you add a new option that players can take, there's a chance it has an unexpected/excessive synergy with some other pre-existing option. The more options you add, the more potential cross-interactions, and the more fragile, complex, and prone to 'breaking' (mainly in terms of balance, but even in terms of functionality) the game becomes. It's a consequence of the /kind/ of design D&D traditionally uses, in which each new option is to some extent mechanically novel (otherwise, why have it, right?) and is just added to the existing list (a 'list based system'). One alternative to that is an 'effects based' system, that has a fixed number of mechanics that model end results of actions or abilities, rather than having many different sub-systems that bring about the same results in conceptually different ways. In an effects based system, an arrow, bullet, magic missile or death ray would all be 'the same' (in that they'd all be attacks that kill, though some might be a lot more potent examples), adding a 'fire bolt' to that system would be something the player could do by using those same mechanics to an appropriate power-level (number of points in a build system, for instance) and re-skinning them. That's not hypothetical, that's how Hero System worked going back to the first ed of Champions! c1981. (And, no, I'm not shilling for Hero System - it's last edition lost me, and I haven't played or run it this decade.) It most certainly has not always been this way. It was arguably this way 20 or 30 (or 40!) years ago, but it's precisely because the last two edition offered many player options, and whether under the rubric of 'system mastery' or 'RAW' or 'balance' or 'Everything is Core' fostered this idea that players were /entitled/ to those options (thus 'player entitlement'). The current hostility to out of control expansion of player options is a reaction to those years. Bloat is bloat, whichever side of the screen it happens on. And there was more to the 'players option' series than Tome of Magic. Bloat is what drove me away from 2e about half-way through it's run. It had too much going on, and the system wasn't robust enough to handle it (compared, say, to 3e). Maybe playing Storyteller in the mean time acclimated me to faster paces of publication, so I was better able to tolerate 3e & 4e in spite of that, but 2e definitely suffered from the issue, quite dramatically. In that sense, for me, 5e really harkens back to early 1e and a book-a-year pace. That was the 'land mine' in my analogy, yes. ;) But, why take that risk? It's all opt-in, yes, so pretty safe. The 'official'/core fighter options remain the original three. They've also been neatly designed to avoid any sort of cross-pollination - several UA fighter sub-classes get CS dice, but what they can do with them doesn't rub off on the BM, for instance. That'd bode well for 5e's robustness in the face of bloat if the same held true for other sub-classes, like the Bladesinger, but it doesn't. :shrug: I think, with the 5e paradigm, they could afford to keep just the core 3 books 'evergreen,' and let supplements have a more limited life - go out of print, be legal in AL for a season or year or two, then gone. Something like that has been working for their CCG lines, I believe (I don't follow them closely, so I could be mistaken). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
Top