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
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7758909" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Neither do I, but that’s goals for you. They’re long-term things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, and I’ve never suggested that you <em>need</em> different mechanical options to play characters differently. That doesn’t mean the game wouldn’t be improved by having them, though. We don’t <em>need</em> any rules at all, but most folks seem to like having at least some.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only if they decided to play a character that wouldn’t take the tactically advantageous option. Which is a valid choice, but is not the only valid choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why on earth would you want to make character decisions arise less frequently in D&D? That’s the whole point of the game, imagining yourself as a character and making decisions as you think that character would. You know, roleplaying. The act of deciding between the tactically advantageous action and the action that is most consistent with your character’s motivations is itself roleplaying, and to assume that the tactically advantageous option is somehow a less authentic roleplaying choice assumes that characters’ motivations cannot change over time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except in the 3 Editions where you’ve had racial Feat options and the one where some races were expressed or enhanced through classes and paragon paths?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except the edition where you got to choose a class, a sub-class, a paragon path, and an epic destiny, each of which had further sub-options in the form of powers?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, for 10 years, I had considerably <em>more</em> choice of Feats and skills customization that I do in 5e, and my point is, those player-facing options didn’t need to go away to satisfy the design goal of making the DM-Facing options more flexible. 3e and 4e messed up by trying to DM-proof the rules, I absolutely agree. But 5e didn’t have to take away the rich character customization those edititions offered to fix that problem. I find 5e an improvement over 3e and 4e because of the changes to the DM-facing rules, but I think a game with 5e’s philosophy towards DM-Facing rules and a 4e-like wealth of player-Facing options would be better than either.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Charla- “Good for you, I can do lots of fancy maneuvers <em>and</em> I’m like no other Fighter you ever knew” -quin</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7758909, member: 6779196"] Neither do I, but that’s goals for you. They’re long-term things. Sure, and I’ve never suggested that you [i]need[/i] different mechanical options to play characters differently. That doesn’t mean the game wouldn’t be improved by having them, though. We don’t [i]need[/i] any rules at all, but most folks seem to like having at least some. Only if they decided to play a character that wouldn’t take the tactically advantageous option. Which is a valid choice, but is not the only valid choice. Why on earth would you want to make character decisions arise less frequently in D&D? That’s the whole point of the game, imagining yourself as a character and making decisions as you think that character would. You know, roleplaying. The act of deciding between the tactically advantageous action and the action that is most consistent with your character’s motivations is itself roleplaying, and to assume that the tactically advantageous option is somehow a less authentic roleplaying choice assumes that characters’ motivations cannot change over time. Except in the 3 Editions where you’ve had racial Feat options and the one where some races were expressed or enhanced through classes and paragon paths? Except the edition where you got to choose a class, a sub-class, a paragon path, and an epic destiny, each of which had further sub-options in the form of powers? Um, for 10 years, I had considerably [i]more[/i] choice of Feats and skills customization that I do in 5e, and my point is, those player-facing options didn’t need to go away to satisfy the design goal of making the DM-Facing options more flexible. 3e and 4e messed up by trying to DM-proof the rules, I absolutely agree. But 5e didn’t have to take away the rich character customization those edititions offered to fix that problem. I find 5e an improvement over 3e and 4e because of the changes to the DM-facing rules, but I think a game with 5e’s philosophy towards DM-Facing rules and a 4e-like wealth of player-Facing options would be better than either. Charla- “Good for you, I can do lots of fancy maneuvers [i]and[/i] I’m like no other Fighter you ever knew” -quin [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top