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
Worlds of Design: A Worthy End?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9230636" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>They weren't "stripped away." They were put into the healing surge, ritual casting, and skill challenge mechanics, and to a lesser extent the player-authored quest concept. People just tried to ignore those parts because they looked new and different and thus were unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Rules did not dictate roleplay because players at the time had made it abundantly clear that rules with even a whiff of roleplay in them were anathema (the "Golden Wyvern Adept" debacle.) This, of course, was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where the overall player base would never have been happy no matter what WotC did.</p><p></p><p>Apart from this, however, your post is a good one...if we extend things past merely considering what the players find worthy, considering not just that, but also whether the <em>designers</em> have made combat a worthy end.</p><p></p><p>From the player-goals side of things, combat is almost always a means. A means to growth, a means to material wealth (which acts as means to yet other ends), to safety, to convenience, etc. However, for some players, it really is also an end in and of itself: they enjoy the challenge of combat, the risk of injury or death or some other form of loss, how pointed and undeniable the threat is, etc. To them, combat is a key testing point, where their skills are not merely allowed to shime but truly required to shine. Strategists, "powergamers," instigators, and adrenaline junkies are all examples of folks who may feel this way about combat. To be tested is, itself, enjoyable and rewarding.</p><p></p><p>But, critically, the tests must actually be good enough! If the tests are dull or, worse, hollow/fake, then all the value such players derive from the experience evaporates. This leads to two requirements. First, the combats must be sufficiently well-made, such that those who value combat for itself can appreciate the quality of the design. Second, the challenge of combat must be <em>sincere</em>: smoke-and-mirrors, tampering, fake difficulty, or concealed foregone conclusions (whether victory or defeat) all spoil the experience irrevocably. These same ideas (good design and sincere execution) apply regardless of what game design area you consider, this is just their application to combat specifically.</p><p></p><p>If combat is to be a significant part of a game—if it is going to be a "pillar" as 5e terms it—then it should be designed, as much as possible, to be a worthy end in and of itself. Again, this applies to any such "pillar," if the term is to have any meaning at all, but we are focused on applying this to combat here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9230636, member: 6790260"] They weren't "stripped away." They were put into the healing surge, ritual casting, and skill challenge mechanics, and to a lesser extent the player-authored quest concept. People just tried to ignore those parts because they looked new and different and thus were unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Rules did not dictate roleplay because players at the time had made it abundantly clear that rules with even a whiff of roleplay in them were anathema (the "Golden Wyvern Adept" debacle.) This, of course, was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where the overall player base would never have been happy no matter what WotC did. Apart from this, however, your post is a good one...if we extend things past merely considering what the players find worthy, considering not just that, but also whether the [I]designers[/I] have made combat a worthy end. From the player-goals side of things, combat is almost always a means. A means to growth, a means to material wealth (which acts as means to yet other ends), to safety, to convenience, etc. However, for some players, it really is also an end in and of itself: they enjoy the challenge of combat, the risk of injury or death or some other form of loss, how pointed and undeniable the threat is, etc. To them, combat is a key testing point, where their skills are not merely allowed to shime but truly required to shine. Strategists, "powergamers," instigators, and adrenaline junkies are all examples of folks who may feel this way about combat. To be tested is, itself, enjoyable and rewarding. But, critically, the tests must actually be good enough! If the tests are dull or, worse, hollow/fake, then all the value such players derive from the experience evaporates. This leads to two requirements. First, the combats must be sufficiently well-made, such that those who value combat for itself can appreciate the quality of the design. Second, the challenge of combat must be [I]sincere[/I]: smoke-and-mirrors, tampering, fake difficulty, or concealed foregone conclusions (whether victory or defeat) all spoil the experience irrevocably. These same ideas (good design and sincere execution) apply regardless of what game design area you consider, this is just their application to combat specifically. If combat is to be a significant part of a game—if it is going to be a "pillar" as 5e terms it—then it should be designed, as much as possible, to be a worthy end in and of itself. Again, this applies to any such "pillar," if the term is to have any meaning at all, but we are focused on applying this to combat here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: A Worthy End?
Top