Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4e design in 5.5e ?
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: 8416676" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>While I appreciate that this is said with humor...yeah. Good luck with that. As I said before, there's a lot to learn from the design of early editions. It's unfortunate that, due to the opaque presentation and abysmal organization, those things are harder to learn than they should be. But there are absolutely very good design elements in early D&D, ones that deserve to be reviewed and tested for use in modern games.</p><p></p><p>Absolute rejection of point buy is not one of them. Even the character funnel, which saves a ton of time and is IMO a very smart piece of design, is not gonna be particularly popular with the gaming community at large. While I have been speaking out for a group of people whose interests differ a lot from mine--those who see PB or 4d6-drop-lowest or whatever as "born lucky" etc.--I am under no illusions that that group is anywhere near the bulk of players. Most players want to get their class fantasy sooner rather than later; they generally decide what to play <em>first</em> and then figure out how to make that happen; and they generally want to have useful numbers that benefit them in the areas they're interested in pursuing. That's been very clearly the more popular approach basically ever since D&D escaped from the Lake Geneva area, being played by people who weren't acculturated to the perspective of Gygax, Arneson, and the wargaming founders of the genre.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, I'd rather not get too deep into the weeds of sarcasm (nor of "empower[ing] player choice"). That way madness lies.</p><p></p><p>But, yeah, players generally want to be able to bring a fantasy to life, not wait for an indeterminate amount of sessions before racking up enough stories and events that they feel like they've <em>grown</em> a fantasy into life. There are, of course, plenty of players who do only want to step back and let grow whatever seeds happen to blow in. But they aren't the majority, and haven't been for a very long time. Changing the underlying system so that it only permits the latter method rather than the former isn't going to make the latter method more overall popular. It's just going to do as it did in the past, and make more people deviate from those rules because, by and large, they aren't as popular as the "I wanna play an elf bard who <backstory>" or "I wanna play a tiefling paladin pursuing a beauty contest victory in order to help protect threatened animals!" or whatever.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8416676, member: 6790260"] While I appreciate that this is said with humor...yeah. Good luck with that. As I said before, there's a lot to learn from the design of early editions. It's unfortunate that, due to the opaque presentation and abysmal organization, those things are harder to learn than they should be. But there are absolutely very good design elements in early D&D, ones that deserve to be reviewed and tested for use in modern games. Absolute rejection of point buy is not one of them. Even the character funnel, which saves a ton of time and is IMO a very smart piece of design, is not gonna be particularly popular with the gaming community at large. While I have been speaking out for a group of people whose interests differ a lot from mine--those who see PB or 4d6-drop-lowest or whatever as "born lucky" etc.--I am under no illusions that that group is anywhere near the bulk of players. Most players want to get their class fantasy sooner rather than later; they generally decide what to play [I]first[/I] and then figure out how to make that happen; and they generally want to have useful numbers that benefit them in the areas they're interested in pursuing. That's been very clearly the more popular approach basically ever since D&D escaped from the Lake Geneva area, being played by people who weren't acculturated to the perspective of Gygax, Arneson, and the wargaming founders of the genre. I mean, I'd rather not get too deep into the weeds of sarcasm (nor of "empower[ing] player choice"). That way madness lies. But, yeah, players generally want to be able to bring a fantasy to life, not wait for an indeterminate amount of sessions before racking up enough stories and events that they feel like they've [I]grown[/I] a fantasy into life. There are, of course, plenty of players who do only want to step back and let grow whatever seeds happen to blow in. But they aren't the majority, and haven't been for a very long time. Changing the underlying system so that it only permits the latter method rather than the former isn't going to make the latter method more overall popular. It's just going to do as it did in the past, and make more people deviate from those rules because, by and large, they aren't as popular as the "I wanna play an elf bard who <backstory>" or "I wanna play a tiefling paladin pursuing a beauty contest victory in order to help protect threatened animals!" or whatever. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4e design in 5.5e ?
Top