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
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5977853" data-attributes="member: 32536"><p>Yes, let's. It's nice to see this discussion take a more friendly and constructive turn. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Looking at this blog, it really does look like we are at pretty opposite ends of the spectrum on many things. For example, I liked 4E's marketing strategy built on explaining how 4E had improved upon 3E. I'd be perfectly happy if 5E used the same strategy, and I'm kinda disappointed that they have not... I guess it is a difference between "wanting to preserve the past" and "wanting to see dramatic change," or something like that.</p><p></p><p>I'm having trouble following this a bit, since you seem to have combined a few different ideas together here. I think it is almost impossible for the game to <em>not</em> influence how it is run, but I do agree that a game like D&D should try to have wide appeal and to be inclusive to different genres.</p><p></p><p>I guess this gets into the argument I had in another thread that seemed to be ultimate based around what the term "house rules" means. I don't consider alternate rules to fit under the category of house rules... But, yeah, there should be many variants in there. The real trick is reconciling the desire for variation with the need for balance, and that can be pretty hard. Sometimes I wonder if D&D should just embrace the "tier" system that fans created for 3E, and allow come classes to be vastly stronger or weaker than others as long as the weak and strong ones were clearly distinguished from the balanced ones.</p><p></p><p>This one is hard for me to agree with on its face. The problem is that "Role-Playing" is something that people rarely think of in the same terms. For some 4E killed role-playing and for others it enabled far better roleplaying than any previous version. Of course, there is also the fact that many people simply don't want to roleplay in D&D, and the game should accommodate them, too. I think we'd need to dig deeper into this idea to reach an agreement on it.</p><p></p><p>From my perspective, roleplaying comes from the environment (mostly the group of players) and from the mechanics. I don't think the rulebooks can really change the environment much, but it can encourage roleplaying via mechanics. That said, mechanics that really encourage roleplaying tend to be more the domain of indie RPGs, and are pretty alien to what has appeared in previous editions of the game.</p><p></p><p>This is going to be a bit of a stickling point for me, as you might be aware if you've seen my arguments asking for Fighters who can chop mountains in half. If you ask me, this kind of request contradicts the "keep the game open for a variety of playstyles and genres" thing from above that I mostly agree with you about. I don't really want strict realism all of the time, especially in high-level, high-fantasy play. I think trying to enforce this intrudes on more important elements needed for a good compromise.</p><p></p><p>I'll agree with a lot of this. These days, people get introduced to game mechanics far more complicated than Essentials classes all the time. It's fine for even simple parts of the game to quickly get more complex and mechanically robust, as long as it doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction.</p><p></p><p>Still (and this might be a bit unrelated to your intent), I do want the game to be very helpful and clear on understanding what is going on and how it can be played. One of my biggest issues with 4E was how it could be rather annoyingly difficult to really get a feel for how its classes worked. You need to read through every power in a giant list and work out how they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Once you figure it out it works great, but there is a hurdle there that needed to be smoothed over. I'd like to avoid a repeat of that issue.</p><p></p><p>Well, I can't say that they've acknowledged it in the way I want them too. They've brought up the subject in a "trust us we know what we're doing" way, but the actual game shown in the playtests isn't exactly a paragon of balance, and the design team seems to be on the same path that led to 3E's unacceptable level of imbalance.</p><p></p><p>But, yeah, you can't ask for perfect balance. Companies with more resources, financial motivation, and a more limited-in-scope task have tried and failed to achieve prefect balance, so it is too much to ask for WotC. Also, situational power differences are not actually an issue of balance... Balance is not "always equal all the time". Balance is "equal in the aggregate over a reasonable amount of time". It's fine if a fight has a M.V.PC, but it's a problem if it is the same person each time, or even half of the time. I also think that we can hope for a bit better level of balance than "average", since the average level of balance in games tends to be pretty poor...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This really isn't so much about protecting people from bad DMs as permitting other styles of playing and DMing. When I DM, I don't <em>want</em> a lot of DM control and need for DM fiat. It gets in the way of my fun and creativity. The job of DMing is really hard and bothersome (which is why many call it a job). The less strain the game places on that one player, the better the game can be for everyone. It also helps add predictability to the table, which helps players feel more comfortable with their actions and let's them feel more in control of their fate and free to experiment. Having clarity in the rules makes every part of the game run smoother.</p><p></p><p>This is going to be an issue of contention. You see, I'm the sort who would <em>love</em> to see a Monster Manual entirely dedicated to 300 statblocks for human opponents. Everything from guards, brigands, and hedgewizards to knight-commanders, pirate kings, and the dark sorcerers who command the armies of Evil Overlords. I like seeing a huge variety of easy-to-use humanoid statblocks that don't require templates or class levels, because they make the kinds of games I like running much, much easier.</p><p></p><p>I might agree with the "three kinds of roper" thing, though. Most monsters don't need the same kind of treatment that intelligent opponents do.</p><p></p><p>You know, I can understand the psychological disconnect caused by "the trap attacks you and rolls a 15", but I don't think it is worth changing the game over. The 4E defense system makes the game run much smoother for a lot of reasons, and trying to reconcile the differences caused by your trap example might require a significant overhaul of the way the dice mechanics in D&D work.</p><p></p><p>That said, I'm totally be okay with a "the PCs roll all the dice" system. I liked that 3E variant. Players roll for their own attacks and defenses, while enemies always have static attacks and defenses. This kind of system works best to solve some of the complaints I've seen come up here and elsewhere, since the PCs are always being active, and NPCs are kept simple.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5977853, member: 32536"] Yes, let's. It's nice to see this discussion take a more friendly and constructive turn. :) Looking at this blog, it really does look like we are at pretty opposite ends of the spectrum on many things. For example, I liked 4E's marketing strategy built on explaining how 4E had improved upon 3E. I'd be perfectly happy if 5E used the same strategy, and I'm kinda disappointed that they have not... I guess it is a difference between "wanting to preserve the past" and "wanting to see dramatic change," or something like that. I'm having trouble following this a bit, since you seem to have combined a few different ideas together here. I think it is almost impossible for the game to [i]not[/i] influence how it is run, but I do agree that a game like D&D should try to have wide appeal and to be inclusive to different genres. I guess this gets into the argument I had in another thread that seemed to be ultimate based around what the term "house rules" means. I don't consider alternate rules to fit under the category of house rules... But, yeah, there should be many variants in there. The real trick is reconciling the desire for variation with the need for balance, and that can be pretty hard. Sometimes I wonder if D&D should just embrace the "tier" system that fans created for 3E, and allow come classes to be vastly stronger or weaker than others as long as the weak and strong ones were clearly distinguished from the balanced ones. This one is hard for me to agree with on its face. The problem is that "Role-Playing" is something that people rarely think of in the same terms. For some 4E killed role-playing and for others it enabled far better roleplaying than any previous version. Of course, there is also the fact that many people simply don't want to roleplay in D&D, and the game should accommodate them, too. I think we'd need to dig deeper into this idea to reach an agreement on it. From my perspective, roleplaying comes from the environment (mostly the group of players) and from the mechanics. I don't think the rulebooks can really change the environment much, but it can encourage roleplaying via mechanics. That said, mechanics that really encourage roleplaying tend to be more the domain of indie RPGs, and are pretty alien to what has appeared in previous editions of the game. This is going to be a bit of a stickling point for me, as you might be aware if you've seen my arguments asking for Fighters who can chop mountains in half. If you ask me, this kind of request contradicts the "keep the game open for a variety of playstyles and genres" thing from above that I mostly agree with you about. I don't really want strict realism all of the time, especially in high-level, high-fantasy play. I think trying to enforce this intrudes on more important elements needed for a good compromise. I'll agree with a lot of this. These days, people get introduced to game mechanics far more complicated than Essentials classes all the time. It's fine for even simple parts of the game to quickly get more complex and mechanically robust, as long as it doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction. Still (and this might be a bit unrelated to your intent), I do want the game to be very helpful and clear on understanding what is going on and how it can be played. One of my biggest issues with 4E was how it could be rather annoyingly difficult to really get a feel for how its classes worked. You need to read through every power in a giant list and work out how they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Once you figure it out it works great, but there is a hurdle there that needed to be smoothed over. I'd like to avoid a repeat of that issue. Well, I can't say that they've acknowledged it in the way I want them too. They've brought up the subject in a "trust us we know what we're doing" way, but the actual game shown in the playtests isn't exactly a paragon of balance, and the design team seems to be on the same path that led to 3E's unacceptable level of imbalance. But, yeah, you can't ask for perfect balance. Companies with more resources, financial motivation, and a more limited-in-scope task have tried and failed to achieve prefect balance, so it is too much to ask for WotC. Also, situational power differences are not actually an issue of balance... Balance is not "always equal all the time". Balance is "equal in the aggregate over a reasonable amount of time". It's fine if a fight has a M.V.PC, but it's a problem if it is the same person each time, or even half of the time. I also think that we can hope for a bit better level of balance than "average", since the average level of balance in games tends to be pretty poor... This really isn't so much about protecting people from bad DMs as permitting other styles of playing and DMing. When I DM, I don't [i]want[/i] a lot of DM control and need for DM fiat. It gets in the way of my fun and creativity. The job of DMing is really hard and bothersome (which is why many call it a job). The less strain the game places on that one player, the better the game can be for everyone. It also helps add predictability to the table, which helps players feel more comfortable with their actions and let's them feel more in control of their fate and free to experiment. Having clarity in the rules makes every part of the game run smoother. This is going to be an issue of contention. You see, I'm the sort who would [i]love[/i] to see a Monster Manual entirely dedicated to 300 statblocks for human opponents. Everything from guards, brigands, and hedgewizards to knight-commanders, pirate kings, and the dark sorcerers who command the armies of Evil Overlords. I like seeing a huge variety of easy-to-use humanoid statblocks that don't require templates or class levels, because they make the kinds of games I like running much, much easier. I might agree with the "three kinds of roper" thing, though. Most monsters don't need the same kind of treatment that intelligent opponents do. You know, I can understand the psychological disconnect caused by "the trap attacks you and rolls a 15", but I don't think it is worth changing the game over. The 4E defense system makes the game run much smoother for a lot of reasons, and trying to reconcile the differences caused by your trap example might require a significant overhaul of the way the dice mechanics in D&D work. That said, I'm totally be okay with a "the PCs roll all the dice" system. I liked that 3E variant. Players roll for their own attacks and defenses, while enemies always have static attacks and defenses. This kind of system works best to solve some of the complaints I've seen come up here and elsewhere, since the PCs are always being active, and NPCs are kept simple. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top