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 LIVE! 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: 7759016" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Excellent and thorough example, thank you.</p><p></p><p>Ok, so first of all, I would argue that bailing out character C is just as valid a character-driven choice as helping free me up. You can certainly say that you have a closer bond with my character and don’t much care for what happens to character C. But you could just as well say that your character’s bond with mine is such that you understand my capabilities and know that I can handle myself. Perhaps even that you would not wish to rob me of the glory of defeating these foes on my own, and the wizard might owe you if you save him. Now, either are valid options, and as the person portraying your character, it is up to you to decide which is the option your character would take. That decision is what, for me, roleplaying is all about, and I would consider trying to eliminate such moments to be a terrible design goal. You’d be actively trying to eliminate the most fun part of the game.</p><p> </p><p>As for if saving character D is “metagaming” or not, that is a question of the social contract of the group. At my table, it is assumed that the characters are cohesive enough unit to be able to effectively communicate what is going on around their part of the battlefield to each other, even if they can’t directly see it. So at my table, going to save the rogue would be fine, under the assumption that he was either able to express his need of aid, or you noticed his absence and thought it suspicious, or something. Not all tables would play it that way, however, and I’ll grant that in this example, we are playing at a table where if your character can’t directly observe what’s happening to the rogue, they don’t know and can’t act on that out of character information. In that case, that would not be a valid roleplaying choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, that’s fair. I prefer character generation to be quick and easy as well, particularly at 1st level. I’m personally less concerned with the speed of generating higher-level characters, but I can empathize with the desire to keep that quick too. Fortunately, the nice thing about options is that they are optional. 5e’s approach to starting equipment provides a good model for how this can be done. If you want to get your starting equipment figured out as quickly as possible, you just take the stuff recommended in the “quick build” for your class. If you want a little more customization but still to keep it quick and easy, you take the starting equipment package for your class, making a few simple choices like “explorer’s pack or dungeoneer’s pack.” If you want as much flexibility as possible and don’t mind it taking longer, take the starting gold and buy your equipment a-la-carte. The DM of course has the power to restrict options and/or provide new ones. This same philosophy could be applied to, say, class features, instead of equipment. Maybe offer a subclass with all fixed abilities for those who don’t want to pick and choose. Or a few. Just also offer options with a lot of customizability for those who like it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t agree with that. You and I will probably never agree on that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7759016, member: 6779196"] Excellent and thorough example, thank you. Ok, so first of all, I would argue that bailing out character C is just as valid a character-driven choice as helping free me up. You can certainly say that you have a closer bond with my character and don’t much care for what happens to character C. But you could just as well say that your character’s bond with mine is such that you understand my capabilities and know that I can handle myself. Perhaps even that you would not wish to rob me of the glory of defeating these foes on my own, and the wizard might owe you if you save him. Now, either are valid options, and as the person portraying your character, it is up to you to decide which is the option your character would take. That decision is what, for me, roleplaying is all about, and I would consider trying to eliminate such moments to be a terrible design goal. You’d be actively trying to eliminate the most fun part of the game. As for if saving character D is “metagaming” or not, that is a question of the social contract of the group. At my table, it is assumed that the characters are cohesive enough unit to be able to effectively communicate what is going on around their part of the battlefield to each other, even if they can’t directly see it. So at my table, going to save the rogue would be fine, under the assumption that he was either able to express his need of aid, or you noticed his absence and thought it suspicious, or something. Not all tables would play it that way, however, and I’ll grant that in this example, we are playing at a table where if your character can’t directly observe what’s happening to the rogue, they don’t know and can’t act on that out of character information. In that case, that would not be a valid roleplaying choice. I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it. Sure, that’s fair. I prefer character generation to be quick and easy as well, particularly at 1st level. I’m personally less concerned with the speed of generating higher-level characters, but I can empathize with the desire to keep that quick too. Fortunately, the nice thing about options is that they are optional. 5e’s approach to starting equipment provides a good model for how this can be done. If you want to get your starting equipment figured out as quickly as possible, you just take the stuff recommended in the “quick build” for your class. If you want a little more customization but still to keep it quick and easy, you take the starting equipment package for your class, making a few simple choices like “explorer’s pack or dungeoneer’s pack.” If you want as much flexibility as possible and don’t mind it taking longer, take the starting gold and buy your equipment a-la-carte. The DM of course has the power to restrict options and/or provide new ones. This same philosophy could be applied to, say, class features, instead of equipment. Maybe offer a subclass with all fixed abilities for those who don’t want to pick and choose. Or a few. Just also offer options with a lot of customizability for those who like it. I don’t agree with that. You and I will probably never agree on that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top