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.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes
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="mearls" data-source="post: 9819917" data-attributes="member: 697"><p>There's a maxim of game design I have learned the hard way over the years:</p><p></p><p>Good ideas and bad ideas only sort themselves out after a month or so of development.</p><p></p><p>Almost every case of 5e falling short comes down to time, because we inevitably had to go through somewhere between three to six concepts for a thing (class, species, whatever) before we landed on something really good. The rogue's signature mechanic started out as part a subclass!</p><p></p><p>Looking back at 5e, it would have been a stronger game if we had the option to release a smaller scope game in 2014, say the core four classes, core species (elf, dwarf, halfling, human), and about 100 or so monsters. The game could've grown more organically. If people had put in a year with the 5e wizard, they might be more open to a sorcerer that was more distinct and the design team would have had more time to try out different concepts.</p><p></p><p>The original concept was to use UA to slowly guide changes to the core. It was meant to be a tool to guide the game forward and make any future core rulebook revisions look obvious and pre-approved by the community. That was the path the ranger was on until the process was hijacked.</p><p></p><p>The biggest disparity I see between game design culture and online discussion culture comes down to this:</p><p></p><p>Online discussion tends to seek fundamental, absolute, and defining explanations for things. This is X because of fact Y. There's comfort in having something etched in stone and decided forever.</p><p></p><p>Game designers see things in context. This is X because of fact Y <strong>at time Z</strong>. That third factor explains a lot. Z could be anything from "We had two days before we had to ship" to "The CEO was dragon-lusted so everything had to have a dragon in it" to "The concept of card advantage had not yet been discovered."</p><p></p><p>Very, very few systems stay in stasis forever. On a long enough time line, even the sun sputters out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mearls, post: 9819917, member: 697"] There's a maxim of game design I have learned the hard way over the years: Good ideas and bad ideas only sort themselves out after a month or so of development. Almost every case of 5e falling short comes down to time, because we inevitably had to go through somewhere between three to six concepts for a thing (class, species, whatever) before we landed on something really good. The rogue's signature mechanic started out as part a subclass! Looking back at 5e, it would have been a stronger game if we had the option to release a smaller scope game in 2014, say the core four classes, core species (elf, dwarf, halfling, human), and about 100 or so monsters. The game could've grown more organically. If people had put in a year with the 5e wizard, they might be more open to a sorcerer that was more distinct and the design team would have had more time to try out different concepts. The original concept was to use UA to slowly guide changes to the core. It was meant to be a tool to guide the game forward and make any future core rulebook revisions look obvious and pre-approved by the community. That was the path the ranger was on until the process was hijacked. The biggest disparity I see between game design culture and online discussion culture comes down to this: Online discussion tends to seek fundamental, absolute, and defining explanations for things. This is X because of fact Y. There's comfort in having something etched in stone and decided forever. Game designers see things in context. This is X because of fact Y [B]at time Z[/B]. That third factor explains a lot. Z could be anything from "We had two days before we had to ship" to "The CEO was dragon-lusted so everything had to have a dragon in it" to "The concept of card advantage had not yet been discovered." Very, very few systems stay in stasis forever. On a long enough time line, even the sun sputters out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes
Top