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
D&D Older Editions
What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5638904" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Well, speak for yourself on what GMs can or can't do, cause I'm PERFECT! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> lol. I disagree though. Rules formalize our thinking about aspects of a game. If you introduce a set of rules for say the logistics of long distance expeditions then those rules will form a framework on which all thinking about that subject will take place. Now, for that kind of niche area of the game this probably isn't a terrible thing, but still it is likely to push other ideas about how to handle that element out of the DM's mind. </p><p></p><p>I don't think you can make an analogy to the human body that works. The 'strength' of a system, in terms of having definite concrete support for some element of the game and flexibility aren't either directly dependent on one another nor directly opposed. However more concrete support does serve to make a specific area of the game work in a consistent way, which can be good or bad.</p><p></p><p>I think the problem with these discussions of 'non combat rules' is that the people asking for them make a mistake in trying to equate combat and non combat situations as if they are simply 2 comparable situations, this is simply not true at all and I feel that any such argument is fatally flawed. In fact this is the nut of my position.</p><p></p><p>Combat is a specific situation and benefits from having specific rules (and even this is often argued long and hard, many times in this thread). In any case it is certainly a very restricted domain and rules can be created which are only applicable in that domain and only affect the rest of the game in a limited fashion.</p><p></p><p>Saying there should be rules for say social situations that have the detail that combat rules do seems odd to me. I don't think you can boil a social situation down to crass mechanical moves and whatnot like you can combat and retain the essence of it. I think a lot of areas of the game are like that, they simply aren't analogous. Having more rules for combat can make it 'better' in at least some sense up to a point. Having more rules for many other things IMHO simply makes them worse. You want the barest framework that you can hang conflict resolution on.</p><p></p><p>I would VERY much sooner use an SC to resolve combat than I would use some rules as elaborate as combat to resolve anything else. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Which we mostly agree about. My feeling is with ANYTHING that a simpler and more elegant implementation of that thing is more desirable. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, as a replacement for more complicated mechanics it might work. Sounds like something that would need to be worked up in more detail to see if there are any flies in that ointment, but I'd be OK with it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmmm, so basically what you're saying is instead of having the PCs powers mysteriously fail to stop the Plot Mandated Event, I give the players a cookie and THEN have their powers mysteriously fail to stop the Plot Mandated Event... lol.</p><p></p><p>I know the above isn't an entirely fair characterization of all uses of these kinds of mechanics, but it does get to the nut of the issue. People talk about things like 'hero points' or whatnot as a panacea, but they actually aren't. They are complicated things to use wisely and consistently, and they can easily undermine players sense of ownership of their character resources amongst other issues. Also my experience is that they tend to amplify the differences between stronger and weaker players. The dominant players (and every group has them to some extent) tend to end up reshaping the story in the direction they want, and now they have a mechanical way to do that. The utility of these mechanics also varies greatly from situation to situation and game to game, so you aren't going to easily create parity between different classes for instance, unless nothing else mechanically integrates with these points.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not really sure what is that innovative about integrating late 1980's era RPG technology into 4e though, lol. I'd much rather see some real innovation if there HAS to be something new added. Why does D&D have to just play catch up? In fact it seems to me 4e is much more innovative than a hypothetical 5e that was trying to graft in mechanics similar to what V:tM introduced around the time 2e came out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5638904, member: 82106"] Well, speak for yourself on what GMs can or can't do, cause I'm PERFECT! ;) lol. I disagree though. Rules formalize our thinking about aspects of a game. If you introduce a set of rules for say the logistics of long distance expeditions then those rules will form a framework on which all thinking about that subject will take place. Now, for that kind of niche area of the game this probably isn't a terrible thing, but still it is likely to push other ideas about how to handle that element out of the DM's mind. I don't think you can make an analogy to the human body that works. The 'strength' of a system, in terms of having definite concrete support for some element of the game and flexibility aren't either directly dependent on one another nor directly opposed. However more concrete support does serve to make a specific area of the game work in a consistent way, which can be good or bad. I think the problem with these discussions of 'non combat rules' is that the people asking for them make a mistake in trying to equate combat and non combat situations as if they are simply 2 comparable situations, this is simply not true at all and I feel that any such argument is fatally flawed. In fact this is the nut of my position. Combat is a specific situation and benefits from having specific rules (and even this is often argued long and hard, many times in this thread). In any case it is certainly a very restricted domain and rules can be created which are only applicable in that domain and only affect the rest of the game in a limited fashion. Saying there should be rules for say social situations that have the detail that combat rules do seems odd to me. I don't think you can boil a social situation down to crass mechanical moves and whatnot like you can combat and retain the essence of it. I think a lot of areas of the game are like that, they simply aren't analogous. Having more rules for combat can make it 'better' in at least some sense up to a point. Having more rules for many other things IMHO simply makes them worse. You want the barest framework that you can hang conflict resolution on. I would VERY much sooner use an SC to resolve combat than I would use some rules as elaborate as combat to resolve anything else. Which we mostly agree about. My feeling is with ANYTHING that a simpler and more elegant implementation of that thing is more desirable. Well, as a replacement for more complicated mechanics it might work. Sounds like something that would need to be worked up in more detail to see if there are any flies in that ointment, but I'd be OK with it. Hmmm, so basically what you're saying is instead of having the PCs powers mysteriously fail to stop the Plot Mandated Event, I give the players a cookie and THEN have their powers mysteriously fail to stop the Plot Mandated Event... lol. I know the above isn't an entirely fair characterization of all uses of these kinds of mechanics, but it does get to the nut of the issue. People talk about things like 'hero points' or whatnot as a panacea, but they actually aren't. They are complicated things to use wisely and consistently, and they can easily undermine players sense of ownership of their character resources amongst other issues. Also my experience is that they tend to amplify the differences between stronger and weaker players. The dominant players (and every group has them to some extent) tend to end up reshaping the story in the direction they want, and now they have a mechanical way to do that. The utility of these mechanics also varies greatly from situation to situation and game to game, so you aren't going to easily create parity between different classes for instance, unless nothing else mechanically integrates with these points. I'm not really sure what is that innovative about integrating late 1980's era RPG technology into 4e though, lol. I'd much rather see some real innovation if there HAS to be something new added. Why does D&D have to just play catch up? In fact it seems to me 4e is much more innovative than a hypothetical 5e that was trying to graft in mechanics similar to what V:tM introduced around the time 2e came out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?
Top