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
Why the HP Threshold on Spells is a Bad Idea
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="slobster" data-source="post: 6021164" data-attributes="member: 6693711"><p>I'm having trouble reconciling your first paragraph with your second. On the one hand, only rolling dice for stats is fair (according to you, and using a strange definition for fair - if everyone being subject to the whims of chance is fair, how is everyone having the power to assign points to stats in the same way not fair?). On the other hand D&D is a tool kit and players should be able to decide for themselves what is best for their campaign. Interesting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, I'll hope you grant that it is theoretically possible for a game to include options that are so powerful that they are "broken".</p><p></p><p>With that assertion a given, we now design a single game with 2 playstyles in mind. 1) Your proposed style, where GM and players work in tandem with mutual trust to use only the options that further the goals of their game. I'll agree with you that this is the ideal. 2) A game where, for whatever reason, the mutual trust hasn't developed. Maybe everyone hasn't played together before, and the group is going through growing pains. Maybe they are all friends but have some pretty different ideas on what they want from a P&P RPG. Whatever. The point is, not everyone gets to play in an ideal group and we shouldn't punish them <em>even more</em> just because they are unlucky.</p><p></p><p>If we include broken options in the game, it probably isn't a problem for playstyle 1. They work well enough together that they will recognize a problem and be able to fix it. This is how you claim your group works, and I compliment you for it. If we do not include any broken options, it is of course still not a problem for playstyle 1, though they'll have to find something else to spend their time houseruling. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>For playstyle 2, however, including broken options is a big problem. It's a focus point for the preexisting differences, or maybe it starts misunderstandings that never would have happened with a more balanced, transparent system. Some people will be upset that they were tricked into "trap" options, others will object to their being able to swap them out because they should have to roleplay the consequences of their decisions. Things get ugly.</p><p></p><p>With no broken options, playstyle 2 has a much better chance to mature to playstyle 1 over time.</p><p></p><p>So why would we consciously ignore broken and trap options when designing our game? Removing them only improves it, even if leaving them in is fine <strong>for some people</strong>. And, from a game designers perspective, blaming a player for taking an effective option is silly; if you knew it was a broken option, why didn't you remove it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slobster, post: 6021164, member: 6693711"] I'm having trouble reconciling your first paragraph with your second. On the one hand, only rolling dice for stats is fair (according to you, and using a strange definition for fair - if everyone being subject to the whims of chance is fair, how is everyone having the power to assign points to stats in the same way not fair?). On the other hand D&D is a tool kit and players should be able to decide for themselves what is best for their campaign. Interesting. First, I'll hope you grant that it is theoretically possible for a game to include options that are so powerful that they are "broken". With that assertion a given, we now design a single game with 2 playstyles in mind. 1) Your proposed style, where GM and players work in tandem with mutual trust to use only the options that further the goals of their game. I'll agree with you that this is the ideal. 2) A game where, for whatever reason, the mutual trust hasn't developed. Maybe everyone hasn't played together before, and the group is going through growing pains. Maybe they are all friends but have some pretty different ideas on what they want from a P&P RPG. Whatever. The point is, not everyone gets to play in an ideal group and we shouldn't punish them [I]even more[/I] just because they are unlucky. If we include broken options in the game, it probably isn't a problem for playstyle 1. They work well enough together that they will recognize a problem and be able to fix it. This is how you claim your group works, and I compliment you for it. If we do not include any broken options, it is of course still not a problem for playstyle 1, though they'll have to find something else to spend their time houseruling. :) For playstyle 2, however, including broken options is a big problem. It's a focus point for the preexisting differences, or maybe it starts misunderstandings that never would have happened with a more balanced, transparent system. Some people will be upset that they were tricked into "trap" options, others will object to their being able to swap them out because they should have to roleplay the consequences of their decisions. Things get ugly. With no broken options, playstyle 2 has a much better chance to mature to playstyle 1 over time. So why would we consciously ignore broken and trap options when designing our game? Removing them only improves it, even if leaving them in is fine [B]for some people[/B]. And, from a game designers perspective, blaming a player for taking an effective option is silly; if you knew it was a broken option, why didn't you remove it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the HP Threshold on Spells is a Bad Idea
Top