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
*TTRPGs General
Mike Mearls: A Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard With Arcane Tradition Walk Into A Tavern
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="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 7648900" data-attributes="member: 70709"><p>I thought about whether to address this in the other post, but opted not to do so. In short, I think they probably don't have the same problem, or at least not to the same degree.</p><p></p><p>The principle effect of ignoring a mechanic is on the mechanics themselves, and that is both necessary and seemly. If one ignores feats then the rule changes, if any, required to restore mechanical balance will probably be no more dependent on roleplaying considerations than the rules were initially. Moreover, ignoring broad rules like feats will tend to affect the PCs in roughly equal measure. Overall, if one minimizes the influence of campaign-dependent elements in the game's mechanics, ignoring one such element generally won't require making the game *even more dependent* on specific elements of the campaign in order to restore mechanical balance.</p><p></p><p>In contrast, when a roleplaying restriction is used to justify a mechanical element more powerful (or restricted) than would otherwise exist, by necessity the new balance has greater campaign dependence than the same game without that element. A DM might knowingly ignore the roleplaying assumptions (no "little blue dwarves"), and I have no problem with the DM who does so, just like I have no real problem with DMs who de-emphasize balance in the first place. What I object to, however, is a design principle that, in aggregate, ends up creating more work for DMs who do want to pay attention to balance.</p><p></p><p>Basically, I want the rules to minimally impinge on how I run the game while keeping a semblance of mechanical balance. If I, as DM, ever think to myself "I should introduce a complication for Player A" not because that would be interesting or flow naturally from the situation, but because player A is playing a class with bigger guns only granted because complications are assumed to occur, then the rules are shaping the campaign in a way I find unnatural and a little burdensome. If a lot of game elements are designed this way eventually it might graduate to very unnatural and substantially burdensome. If certain very strong setting assumptions are part of some game's core identity (e.g. the role of magi in Ars Magica) then my objection is lessened with respect to related areas in that game.</p><p></p><p>So, when roleplaying considerations are included in a class, but have no impact on mechanical power, I have no complaint. When they are included and have a mechanical impact carefully designed to match each instance of roleplaying consideration in kind (something like FATE), I also have no complaint. What I hate is a tradeoff like "Always helps an elf in need" for a blanket "+1 to weapon attacks" because the first statement can have such highly variable implications. The impact of helping an elf in need should be the esteem of the elves, reciprocal help when needed, extra trouble in the city of elf-haters, or even a gift from the Elven Queen of a weapon that is conveniently +1 higher than the PCs current one. The latter even mimics a mechanical benefit I wouldn't like, but it's OK because roleplaying considerations led to an appropriate roleplaying response.</p><p></p><p>I hope that adequately describes my perspective! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 7648900, member: 70709"] I thought about whether to address this in the other post, but opted not to do so. In short, I think they probably don't have the same problem, or at least not to the same degree. The principle effect of ignoring a mechanic is on the mechanics themselves, and that is both necessary and seemly. If one ignores feats then the rule changes, if any, required to restore mechanical balance will probably be no more dependent on roleplaying considerations than the rules were initially. Moreover, ignoring broad rules like feats will tend to affect the PCs in roughly equal measure. Overall, if one minimizes the influence of campaign-dependent elements in the game's mechanics, ignoring one such element generally won't require making the game *even more dependent* on specific elements of the campaign in order to restore mechanical balance. In contrast, when a roleplaying restriction is used to justify a mechanical element more powerful (or restricted) than would otherwise exist, by necessity the new balance has greater campaign dependence than the same game without that element. A DM might knowingly ignore the roleplaying assumptions (no "little blue dwarves"), and I have no problem with the DM who does so, just like I have no real problem with DMs who de-emphasize balance in the first place. What I object to, however, is a design principle that, in aggregate, ends up creating more work for DMs who do want to pay attention to balance. Basically, I want the rules to minimally impinge on how I run the game while keeping a semblance of mechanical balance. If I, as DM, ever think to myself "I should introduce a complication for Player A" not because that would be interesting or flow naturally from the situation, but because player A is playing a class with bigger guns only granted because complications are assumed to occur, then the rules are shaping the campaign in a way I find unnatural and a little burdensome. If a lot of game elements are designed this way eventually it might graduate to very unnatural and substantially burdensome. If certain very strong setting assumptions are part of some game's core identity (e.g. the role of magi in Ars Magica) then my objection is lessened with respect to related areas in that game. So, when roleplaying considerations are included in a class, but have no impact on mechanical power, I have no complaint. When they are included and have a mechanical impact carefully designed to match each instance of roleplaying consideration in kind (something like FATE), I also have no complaint. What I hate is a tradeoff like "Always helps an elf in need" for a blanket "+1 to weapon attacks" because the first statement can have such highly variable implications. The impact of helping an elf in need should be the esteem of the elves, reciprocal help when needed, extra trouble in the city of elf-haters, or even a gift from the Elven Queen of a weapon that is conveniently +1 higher than the PCs current one. The latter even mimics a mechanical benefit I wouldn't like, but it's OK because roleplaying considerations led to an appropriate roleplaying response. I hope that adequately describes my perspective! :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mike Mearls: A Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard With Arcane Tradition Walk Into A Tavern
Top