Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8378909" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Are you saying this is good game design?&nbsp; Honest question, maybe it is.&nbsp; If what you are saying is correct, there are a number of perfectly viable character types--half-orc wizard, etc--that do not get chosen because of the extra bonus a race-class synergy would get you if you played gnome or high elf instead.&nbsp; Further, you seem to be saying that the way new players find out about this synergy is generally not through reading the phb, but through a play culture where newer players get convinced to &quot;optimize&quot; in this regard.&nbsp; It's very possible that's accurate, but again is that good game design?&nbsp; The game and ensuing play culture seems to be saying, &quot;don't play half-orc wizards unless you consciously&nbsp; want to play against type.&quot;&nbsp; That's a totally fine game-design prerogative, but this seems to me a pretty roundabout way of achieving that goal.&nbsp; Previous editions were more direct about their design goals in various ways. Consider, for example, 3e:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2e:1e:All these editions are relatively clear about their design priorities and explain how the implemented mechanics relate to the central theme of the game.&nbsp; I have been arguing that racial ASI is a legacy of the design and themes of these earlier games, and one that is atrophied by comparison.&nbsp; I would further argue that the themes these earlier editions wanted to reinforce, while still extremely relevant to many players, stand alongside many other traditions of fantasy that people want to incorporate into their game (arguably, the people interested in other genres would be better served by different games, but that's another topic).Maybe the benefit of racial ASI is that allows those interested in the themes of earlier editions to buy into 5e, while also leaving plenty of room for expansions into other genres?&nbsp; Or maybe this means that, as in so many other instances, 5e is a &quot;middle ground&quot; kind of game that does nothing particularly well?&nbsp; This relates to the recent discussion here and on Matt Colville's channel of what 5e does well, as in, what's it's specific niche (can't find it now).&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; There's a third side, which is just getting rid of it all together. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :LOL:"&nbsp; data-smilie="17"data-shortname=":LOL:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8378909, member: 7030755"] Are you saying this is good game design? Honest question, maybe it is. If what you are saying is correct, there are a number of perfectly viable character types--half-orc wizard, etc--that do not get chosen because of the extra bonus a race-class synergy would get you if you played gnome or high elf instead. Further, you seem to be saying that the way new players find out about this synergy is generally not through reading the phb, but through a play culture where newer players get convinced to "optimize" in this regard. It's very possible that's accurate, but again is that good game design? The game and ensuing play culture seems to be saying, "don't play half-orc wizards unless you consciously want to play against type." That's a totally fine game-design prerogative, but this seems to me a pretty roundabout way of achieving that goal. Previous editions were more direct about their design goals in various ways. Consider, for example, 3e: 2e: 1e: All these editions are relatively clear about their design priorities and explain how the implemented mechanics relate to the central theme of the game. I have been arguing that racial ASI is a legacy of the design and themes of these earlier games, and one that is atrophied by comparison. I would further argue that the themes these earlier editions wanted to reinforce, while still extremely relevant to many players, stand alongside many other traditions of fantasy that people want to incorporate into their game (arguably, the people interested in other genres would be better served by different games, but that's another topic). Maybe the benefit of racial ASI is that allows those interested in the themes of earlier editions to buy into 5e, while also leaving plenty of room for expansions into other genres? Or maybe this means that, as in so many other instances, 5e is a "middle ground" kind of game that does nothing particularly well? This relates to the recent discussion here and on Matt Colville's channel of what 5e does well, as in, what's it's specific niche (can't find it now). There's a third side, which is just getting rid of it all together. :LOL: [/QUOTE]

Verification