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="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7648946" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>One of the other problems that a game can have is that when it includes a mechanic (even one that is technically optional and doesn't have to be used)... the mechanic and the game get linked together. And if it turns out that the mechanic doesn't accomplish effectively what a particular player thinks it's supposed to... there is a tendency to disregard the game <em>as well</em> as the mechanic, since the two get linked in the mind of the player. And the player will forsake the game entirely, under the belief that another game can give the better experience that they player is looking for (even if the game as a whole might be really good)</p><p></p><p>So for instance, in the case of skill challenges... the fact that 4E included a mechanic (or several iterations of mechanic) to set up and run skill-based encounters, it became linked as a defining part of the 4E game (even if it never really needed to be used). And thus... some players who <em>could</em> or <em>preferred</em> to run much more open skill-based encounters (and who found the skill challenge mechanic restraining and not useful)... disregarded 4E on the whole because of the link of skill challenges to the game itself. The thought being that if 4E included skill challenges as part of its design, and the skill challenge mechanic was BAD design, then ipso facto, 4E on the whole had a bad design. Because obviously if 4E was designed well, it wouldn't include such a bad mechanic in it.</p><p></p><p>Now whether or not thinking that way is fair... or indeed whether it's even going so far as cutting off the nose to spite the face... in the end doesn't really matter. Because the fact is... that player has more than enough alternatives that even if he disregards the 4E game just on the failure of skill challenges, he can find some other game that fulfills his needs.</p><p></p><p>The big issue for the rest of us though is when that player comes here on ENWorld and decries the entire 4E game because it includes an unwanted mechanic, and then goes so far as to insinuate that the designers are morons, WotC as a company has given a middle finger to their fans, and that other players who like the game are idiots and shills. And we've seen that kind of attitude <em>all the time</em> over the duration of the game. Folks decrying 4E because it included the Healing Surge mechanic. Decrying 4E because it created the Weapon Expertise feat. Decrying 4E because Fighters had Daily abilities. So on and so forth. Every unwanted mechanic told them all they needed to know about the 4E game, and how WotC felt about them as a customer because they <em>dared</em> to include said mechanic in "D&D" and that "their D&D game" was irreparably ruined.</p><p></p><p>(And anyone who doesn't think some folks here on ENWorld have been THAT hyperbolic in their posts over the last four years have not really been paying attention enough. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> )</p><p></p><p>That's why I'm really curious about how 5E will be received... because the entire game will be built on "optional rules" that intentionally will be there NOT to be used. How will players react to them? Will they be able to sift through the 5E rules options and create a game they want to play out of the rules they want... or will the mere <em>existence</em> of optional rules they don't like actually appearing in the book be enough to make them wipe their hands of it altogether without bothering to give it a chance? Because we players tend to get pissed off quite easily about that sort of thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7648946, member: 7006"] One of the other problems that a game can have is that when it includes a mechanic (even one that is technically optional and doesn't have to be used)... the mechanic and the game get linked together. And if it turns out that the mechanic doesn't accomplish effectively what a particular player thinks it's supposed to... there is a tendency to disregard the game [I]as well[/I] as the mechanic, since the two get linked in the mind of the player. And the player will forsake the game entirely, under the belief that another game can give the better experience that they player is looking for (even if the game as a whole might be really good) So for instance, in the case of skill challenges... the fact that 4E included a mechanic (or several iterations of mechanic) to set up and run skill-based encounters, it became linked as a defining part of the 4E game (even if it never really needed to be used). And thus... some players who [I]could[/I] or [I]preferred[/I] to run much more open skill-based encounters (and who found the skill challenge mechanic restraining and not useful)... disregarded 4E on the whole because of the link of skill challenges to the game itself. The thought being that if 4E included skill challenges as part of its design, and the skill challenge mechanic was BAD design, then ipso facto, 4E on the whole had a bad design. Because obviously if 4E was designed well, it wouldn't include such a bad mechanic in it. Now whether or not thinking that way is fair... or indeed whether it's even going so far as cutting off the nose to spite the face... in the end doesn't really matter. Because the fact is... that player has more than enough alternatives that even if he disregards the 4E game just on the failure of skill challenges, he can find some other game that fulfills his needs. The big issue for the rest of us though is when that player comes here on ENWorld and decries the entire 4E game because it includes an unwanted mechanic, and then goes so far as to insinuate that the designers are morons, WotC as a company has given a middle finger to their fans, and that other players who like the game are idiots and shills. And we've seen that kind of attitude [I]all the time[/I] over the duration of the game. Folks decrying 4E because it included the Healing Surge mechanic. Decrying 4E because it created the Weapon Expertise feat. Decrying 4E because Fighters had Daily abilities. So on and so forth. Every unwanted mechanic told them all they needed to know about the 4E game, and how WotC felt about them as a customer because they [I]dared[/I] to include said mechanic in "D&D" and that "their D&D game" was irreparably ruined. (And anyone who doesn't think some folks here on ENWorld have been THAT hyperbolic in their posts over the last four years have not really been paying attention enough. ;) ) That's why I'm really curious about how 5E will be received... because the entire game will be built on "optional rules" that intentionally will be there NOT to be used. How will players react to them? Will they be able to sift through the 5E rules options and create a game they want to play out of the rules they want... or will the mere [I]existence[/I] of optional rules they don't like actually appearing in the book be enough to make them wipe their hands of it altogether without bothering to give it a chance? Because we players tend to get pissed off quite easily about that sort of thing. [/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