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
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4E Rogue for non-4E enthusiast
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4068967" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I was trying to avoid having to prove something if challenged to back up my claim, simply because I didn't want to do the research to find the quotes. I figured if I used some qualification in making my claim, that the claim would be much easier to back up if challenged on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Doesn't bother me any. Line up a whole bunch of quotes proving that it is. It only strengthens my argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nothing says 'dumb system' to me like mental/social attributes that are dump stats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Consider the following:</p><p></p><p>A character of class 'A' has combat performance f(x), and non-combat performance of g(x). Now, suppose thier is a class 'B' with combat performance f'(x) where f'(x) > f(x). In other words, that character performs better in combat than another class. By the definition of 'combat performance is no longer tied to non-combat performance', f'(x) implies nothing about g'(x). But I think that it is clear that we would not want to design classes where both combat performance and non-combat performance are generally better than some other class. In fact, this has been a common complaint against 3rd edition as at high levels spell-casters generally are more capable both in and out of combat compared to say fighters.</p><p></p><p>This means that if we impose the additional constraint f(x) = f'(x), that is to say classes are generally balanced in combat, we must also have the constraint g(x) = g'(x) - classes are generally balanced out of combat. We therefore can no longer have classes designed such that f(x) < f'(x) but g(x) > g'(x) or f(x) > f'(x) but g(x) < g'(x). And that's fine. You may think that that is a good thing, and in the extreme case of something like f(x) << f'(x) but g(x) >> g'(x), I agree with you. However, good thing or not, it still implies a very tight and highly constrained design, and not one that has 'one less restriction'. </p><p></p><p>I'm not at all sure how you reason that it is one less restriction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4068967, member: 4937"] I was trying to avoid having to prove something if challenged to back up my claim, simply because I didn't want to do the research to find the quotes. I figured if I used some qualification in making my claim, that the claim would be much easier to back up if challenged on. Doesn't bother me any. Line up a whole bunch of quotes proving that it is. It only strengthens my argument. Nothing says 'dumb system' to me like mental/social attributes that are dump stats. Consider the following: A character of class 'A' has combat performance f(x), and non-combat performance of g(x). Now, suppose thier is a class 'B' with combat performance f'(x) where f'(x) > f(x). In other words, that character performs better in combat than another class. By the definition of 'combat performance is no longer tied to non-combat performance', f'(x) implies nothing about g'(x). But I think that it is clear that we would not want to design classes where both combat performance and non-combat performance are generally better than some other class. In fact, this has been a common complaint against 3rd edition as at high levels spell-casters generally are more capable both in and out of combat compared to say fighters. This means that if we impose the additional constraint f(x) = f'(x), that is to say classes are generally balanced in combat, we must also have the constraint g(x) = g'(x) - classes are generally balanced out of combat. We therefore can no longer have classes designed such that f(x) < f'(x) but g(x) > g'(x) or f(x) > f'(x) but g(x) < g'(x). And that's fine. You may think that that is a good thing, and in the extreme case of something like f(x) << f'(x) but g(x) >> g'(x), I agree with you. However, good thing or not, it still implies a very tight and highly constrained design, and not one that has 'one less restriction'. I'm not at all sure how you reason that it is one less restriction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4E Rogue for non-4E enthusiast
Top