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="Jester David" data-source="post: 5977908" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>I have a couple rules I've developed over the years for future content thought experiments and brainstorms.</p><p></p><p>1) Every game element is someone's favorite. Someone out there loves (LOVES!) their shardmind runepriest.</p><p></p><p>2) Any game element that has been in the game for four or more editions should be in future editions in some way, shape, or form. Any element that has been in 3 or more editions should be seriously considered for inclusion, even if barely recognizable. Any game element that has been in two or more editions should be carefully looked at but becomes less necessary.</p><p></p><p>3) It's always easier to ignore rules and advice than have to make it up yourself.</p><p></p><p>And there's the <strong>Jester Fallacy:</strong> Any source of inspiration, be it a video game or an older edition, is a valid source of inspiration, and can be just as functional if executed properly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was all a matter of tone. It typically insulted 3e and claimed 4e would fix the problem. And, more often than not it was some problem that had been beaten to the ground. "Grappling in 3e sucks, but we fixed it." </p><p>Tell me it doesn't sting when someone at WotC talk negatively about 4e, discussing combat length, AEDU classes, or the like.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I should have called it "variant rules", but there should be advice on making your own rules and hacking the system.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't disagree. The interesting thing about rules modules is they don't necessarily have to be balanced. The core rules <u><em>have</em></u> to be but the modules could more broken. There could be low-magic spell variant that weakens wizards or a more old school quadratic wizard rule set.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a tier thing. </p><p>I didn't emphasise it enough but this can (and should) change with tier. Start with narrative reality and drift into more and more fantastic. Then at epic you can start cutting mountains in half. </p><p>Starting at different levels (and tiers) is a good way get different play styles without modules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The catch being the M.V.PC can be determined more by the player than the rules. A skilled player can "win" at any game. Even playing a mid-level wizard in 3.5e I was not the most powerful character because I'm a terrible, terrible optimizer.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's always easier to surrender control than take it back. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That would be handy, but a kobold guard, goblin guard, human guard, and elf guard are probably pretty darn similar. I think it would be easier to add "guard" to any of the monsters and, for the PC races, have a guard monster that you can add the standard elf/ dwarf/ human traits to. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Avoidence mechanism have other uses. Look at forced movement into hazards. You avoid it by making a saving throw, which is the 4e duration tracking mechanism. A bit of kludge design there. </p><p></p><p>The 4e defense mechanic is also slower. Subtlety so. Mostly for AoEs. The player has to make multiple rolls and communicate the result across the table, doing math for each. Then the DM says if it succeeded or not. For saving throws the player just states the DC and the DM rolls, communicating success or failure. There's less of a break where a series of numbers are spat across the table before the turn ends.</p><p>Small. But it adds up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 5977908, member: 37579"] I have a couple rules I've developed over the years for future content thought experiments and brainstorms. 1) Every game element is someone's favorite. Someone out there loves (LOVES!) their shardmind runepriest. 2) Any game element that has been in the game for four or more editions should be in future editions in some way, shape, or form. Any element that has been in 3 or more editions should be seriously considered for inclusion, even if barely recognizable. Any game element that has been in two or more editions should be carefully looked at but becomes less necessary. 3) It's always easier to ignore rules and advice than have to make it up yourself. And there's the [B]Jester Fallacy:[/B] Any source of inspiration, be it a video game or an older edition, is a valid source of inspiration, and can be just as functional if executed properly. It was all a matter of tone. It typically insulted 3e and claimed 4e would fix the problem. And, more often than not it was some problem that had been beaten to the ground. "Grappling in 3e sucks, but we fixed it." Tell me it doesn't sting when someone at WotC talk negatively about 4e, discussing combat length, AEDU classes, or the like. I should have called it "variant rules", but there should be advice on making your own rules and hacking the system. I don't disagree. The interesting thing about rules modules is they don't necessarily have to be balanced. The core rules [U][I]have[/I][/U] to be but the modules could more broken. There could be low-magic spell variant that weakens wizards or a more old school quadratic wizard rule set. This is a tier thing. I didn't emphasise it enough but this can (and should) change with tier. Start with narrative reality and drift into more and more fantastic. Then at epic you can start cutting mountains in half. Starting at different levels (and tiers) is a good way get different play styles without modules. The catch being the M.V.PC can be determined more by the player than the rules. A skilled player can "win" at any game. Even playing a mid-level wizard in 3.5e I was not the most powerful character because I'm a terrible, terrible optimizer. It's always easier to surrender control than take it back. That would be handy, but a kobold guard, goblin guard, human guard, and elf guard are probably pretty darn similar. I think it would be easier to add "guard" to any of the monsters and, for the PC races, have a guard monster that you can add the standard elf/ dwarf/ human traits to. Avoidence mechanism have other uses. Look at forced movement into hazards. You avoid it by making a saving throw, which is the 4e duration tracking mechanism. A bit of kludge design there. The 4e defense mechanic is also slower. Subtlety so. Mostly for AoEs. The player has to make multiple rolls and communicate the result across the table, doing math for each. Then the DM says if it succeeded or not. For saving throws the player just states the DC and the DM rolls, communicating success or failure. There's less of a break where a series of numbers are spat across the table before the turn ends. Small. But it adds up. [/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