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
*Dungeons & Dragons
proposal: not require summaries on character sheets
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="evilbob" data-source="post: 5164447" data-attributes="member: 9789"><p>ozy: Thank you for the clarification on your response. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>covaithe: The main thing I'd envision - at least currently - is simply the existing sheet without the duplicate information. Effectively, the wiki without those ~6 lines of text, or the google doc without the 2nd sheet. It is my opinion that this duplicated information is not, on the whole, that time-saving for judges or DMs - especially as more useful, detailed information is so readily available - and its benefits are outweighed by its detractions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I also disagree partially with one of the points r1 brings up: I feel it will definitely save the reviewers' time. First, it will save (a very small amount of) time by only having information in one place instead of two, which cuts down on the amount of checking necessary. Second, it will save (a slightly greater amount of) time by cutting down the number of errors and thus correspondence about said errors.</p><p></p><p></p><p>To explain further: personally, when looking at someone's sheet for my own purposes I completely ignore the summary area and favor the detailed information; I find no burden in examining a greater amount of their sheet since frankly it helps me understand the character better overall. For others: they feel the opposite of me. At the end of the day, this proposal is about whether or not these tiny bits of detail at the top of the sheet (or 2nd page) are to be considered "required" or "optional." It is my opinion that they don't bring enough to the table to be required. If you don't agree, I doubt my arguments will really sway you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ultimately, I freely admit that this proposal is, at its heart, extremely trivial. The amount of time we're talking about on EITHER side is nearly too small to measure. For those who are not aware, the entire reason for the existence of this proposal is because I personally have repeatedly not filled in those summary areas of the various characters I've made. Instead, I've spent far more time explaining my position and writing a proposal than just filling in the damn sheet. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Ultimately, my own personal take is that I find those summaries a nuisance since I never use them. If you agree, or you think my arguments have merit, support the proposal. If not, don't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 5164447, member: 9789"] ozy: Thank you for the clarification on your response. ;) covaithe: The main thing I'd envision - at least currently - is simply the existing sheet without the duplicate information. Effectively, the wiki without those ~6 lines of text, or the google doc without the 2nd sheet. It is my opinion that this duplicated information is not, on the whole, that time-saving for judges or DMs - especially as more useful, detailed information is so readily available - and its benefits are outweighed by its detractions. I also disagree partially with one of the points r1 brings up: I feel it will definitely save the reviewers' time. First, it will save (a very small amount of) time by only having information in one place instead of two, which cuts down on the amount of checking necessary. Second, it will save (a slightly greater amount of) time by cutting down the number of errors and thus correspondence about said errors. To explain further: personally, when looking at someone's sheet for my own purposes I completely ignore the summary area and favor the detailed information; I find no burden in examining a greater amount of their sheet since frankly it helps me understand the character better overall. For others: they feel the opposite of me. At the end of the day, this proposal is about whether or not these tiny bits of detail at the top of the sheet (or 2nd page) are to be considered "required" or "optional." It is my opinion that they don't bring enough to the table to be required. If you don't agree, I doubt my arguments will really sway you. Ultimately, I freely admit that this proposal is, at its heart, extremely trivial. The amount of time we're talking about on EITHER side is nearly too small to measure. For those who are not aware, the entire reason for the existence of this proposal is because I personally have repeatedly not filled in those summary areas of the various characters I've made. Instead, I've spent far more time explaining my position and writing a proposal than just filling in the damn sheet. :) Ultimately, my own personal take is that I find those summaries a nuisance since I never use them. If you agree, or you think my arguments have merit, support the proposal. If not, don't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
proposal: not require summaries on character sheets
Top