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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Assumptions about character creation
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: 8121320" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>..."not getting what you don't want" isn't success. It's <em>avoiding failure</em>. That's going to be a key point of disagreement here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If the status quo is being retained, <em>the characters aren't activating the rules</em>. Whenever you trigger mechanics, it should be because Things Are In Doubt. Both 4e and DW work that way, for opposite reasons: DW because you only turn to the mechanics when the fiction needs it, 4e because the devs <em>trust the DM</em> to handle all the fiction stuff that rules just aren't good for. (Of course, its detractors called this "being only about combat" etc., in a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument--anywhere it had rules for roleplay, it was restrictive, and anywhere it didn't, it provided no support.)</p><p></p><p>Any time you engage the rules, the status quo SHOULD be in question. If the status quo ISN'T in question, the rules aren't needed. And even at times when it <em>is</em> in question, the rules may not be needed (as when the DM just says yes because the plan is too sensible/cool/funny not to).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay...but that's not a <em>game design</em> element. That's what a player has to do <em>when already playing</em> a game designed that way. It's circular to argue this; you're presuming the thing you're defending.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay so...what about the vast excluded middle of things you <em>generally should</em> obey, but which you <em>definitely shouldn't</em> obey 100% of the time? Because, well, that's kind of where "rule" exists in literally all games. They're...conventions? Customs? Norms? Heuristics, if we want to be technical? "Rule" is the most natural word for this as far as I'm concerned, and "rules" are <em>definitely</em> less strict than "laws" (otherwise we would see at least <em>some</em> intermingling of the two terms, wouldn't we? The only use of "laws" I can think of in a D&D-like context is Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.)</p><p></p><p>The "rules" of writing are not laws. Again, as I have repeatedly and explicitly said, you SHOULD break them literally 100% of the time that doing so would improve your work. Which might sound like a really useless rule ("what, you use it only when it's good, and not when it's bad?"), but the point of the rule is that it <em>usually is</em> good to follow it. It <em>usually is</em> good to write your English sentences as subject-verb-object, but we break that rule all the time in poetry. It <em>usually is</em> good to end chord progressions with a perfect or plagal cadence, but plenty of songs use some other kind of cadence or intentionally leave a feeling of suspense and unresolved emotion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, you're allowed to <em>call</em> them that if you like, but surely you see that that's a disparagement that many would disagree with? The stats simply are not the same. There may be less <em>variability</em> than you like, but there's also (far) more <em>choice</em>, which is its own form of non-sameness.</p><p></p><p>I mean, yes? It doesn't help that your evidence, <em>even if it were flawless</em>, does not actually address the point I keep explicitly making: these rules, these conventions/customs/norms/heuristics/WHATEVER term you need so that you don't read it and think "oh, if I break this, horrible things happen 100% of the time," are USEFUL, as are higher stats as opposed to lower stats. That you can give me examples, logic, even statistics to show that they aren't REQUIRED <em>does not actually defeat my point</em>. You would need a hell of a lot more statistical evidence to show that the thing is NOT useful, when all I need to do is point to the very simple probability: having a +4 modifier instead of a +2 modifier means succeeding, on average, 10% more, and so by the law of averages, we would expect that about 10% more characters with said higher modifiers survive. (In practice it will be less because not <em>every</em> modifier is 2 higher, but the point stands.) You're going to need something pretty strong to counter that!</p><p></p><p></p><p>See above. I'm not alone in thinking this.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you ever heard of Fourthcore? You might be seriously surprised. <em>That</em> IS running 4e in "hard mode." (Well, was, the official community is defunct now.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>...you have to completely re-do the math. Recalculating the AC and attack of each creature, checking bonuses to make sure they're all properly labelled (not that 2e was ever consistent with how attack bonuses or penalties were labelled). You consider this an <em>easy</em> task? I just...I literally have no idea how to respond to this fact. You talk about a variety of easy tasks as though they are insanely difficult, and then talk about a variety of seriously difficult tasks as though they are trivial. I have no idea what "easy" and "hard" even means to you anymore.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's...</p><p></p><p>Okay, Lanefan. We need to hash out here what we're talking about. Are we talking about <em>design</em>, which means things that happen <em>before the game even begins</em>, or are we talking about <em>at-table play</em>, which is after design is already complete?</p><p></p><p>Because you keep slipping back and forth between the two and it's really really hard to have a conversation about either one when you do that. Obviously, design affects at-table play, but focusing on design means the at-table play experience is up in the air, while focusing on the at-table play experience means design should be largely settled. (Even in playtesting, you need to have a consistent ruleset for long enough to, y'know, actually <em>test</em> the play experience, otherwise you don't learn anything.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Out of curiosity: How often do you play these non-D&D systems with people who are truly new to RPGs?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8121320, member: 6790260"] ..."not getting what you don't want" isn't success. It's [I]avoiding failure[/I]. That's going to be a key point of disagreement here. If the status quo is being retained, [I]the characters aren't activating the rules[/I]. Whenever you trigger mechanics, it should be because Things Are In Doubt. Both 4e and DW work that way, for opposite reasons: DW because you only turn to the mechanics when the fiction needs it, 4e because the devs [I]trust the DM[/I] to handle all the fiction stuff that rules just aren't good for. (Of course, its detractors called this "being only about combat" etc., in a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument--anywhere it had rules for roleplay, it was restrictive, and anywhere it didn't, it provided no support.) Any time you engage the rules, the status quo SHOULD be in question. If the status quo ISN'T in question, the rules aren't needed. And even at times when it [I]is[/I] in question, the rules may not be needed (as when the DM just says yes because the plan is too sensible/cool/funny not to). Okay...but that's not a [I]game design[/I] element. That's what a player has to do [I]when already playing[/I] a game designed that way. It's circular to argue this; you're presuming the thing you're defending. Okay so...what about the vast excluded middle of things you [I]generally should[/I] obey, but which you [I]definitely shouldn't[/I] obey 100% of the time? Because, well, that's kind of where "rule" exists in literally all games. They're...conventions? Customs? Norms? Heuristics, if we want to be technical? "Rule" is the most natural word for this as far as I'm concerned, and "rules" are [I]definitely[/I] less strict than "laws" (otherwise we would see at least [I]some[/I] intermingling of the two terms, wouldn't we? The only use of "laws" I can think of in a D&D-like context is Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.) The "rules" of writing are not laws. Again, as I have repeatedly and explicitly said, you SHOULD break them literally 100% of the time that doing so would improve your work. Which might sound like a really useless rule ("what, you use it only when it's good, and not when it's bad?"), but the point of the rule is that it [I]usually is[/I] good to follow it. It [I]usually is[/I] good to write your English sentences as subject-verb-object, but we break that rule all the time in poetry. It [I]usually is[/I] good to end chord progressions with a perfect or plagal cadence, but plenty of songs use some other kind of cadence or intentionally leave a feeling of suspense and unresolved emotion. I mean, you're allowed to [I]call[/I] them that if you like, but surely you see that that's a disparagement that many would disagree with? The stats simply are not the same. There may be less [I]variability[/I] than you like, but there's also (far) more [I]choice[/I], which is its own form of non-sameness. I mean, yes? It doesn't help that your evidence, [I]even if it were flawless[/I], does not actually address the point I keep explicitly making: these rules, these conventions/customs/norms/heuristics/WHATEVER term you need so that you don't read it and think "oh, if I break this, horrible things happen 100% of the time," are USEFUL, as are higher stats as opposed to lower stats. That you can give me examples, logic, even statistics to show that they aren't REQUIRED [I]does not actually defeat my point[/I]. You would need a hell of a lot more statistical evidence to show that the thing is NOT useful, when all I need to do is point to the very simple probability: having a +4 modifier instead of a +2 modifier means succeeding, on average, 10% more, and so by the law of averages, we would expect that about 10% more characters with said higher modifiers survive. (In practice it will be less because not [I]every[/I] modifier is 2 higher, but the point stands.) You're going to need something pretty strong to counter that! See above. I'm not alone in thinking this. Have you ever heard of Fourthcore? You might be seriously surprised. [I]That[/I] IS running 4e in "hard mode." (Well, was, the official community is defunct now.) ...you have to completely re-do the math. Recalculating the AC and attack of each creature, checking bonuses to make sure they're all properly labelled (not that 2e was ever consistent with how attack bonuses or penalties were labelled). You consider this an [I]easy[/I] task? I just...I literally have no idea how to respond to this fact. You talk about a variety of easy tasks as though they are insanely difficult, and then talk about a variety of seriously difficult tasks as though they are trivial. I have no idea what "easy" and "hard" even means to you anymore. That's... Okay, Lanefan. We need to hash out here what we're talking about. Are we talking about [I]design[/I], which means things that happen [I]before the game even begins[/I], or are we talking about [I]at-table play[/I], which is after design is already complete? Because you keep slipping back and forth between the two and it's really really hard to have a conversation about either one when you do that. Obviously, design affects at-table play, but focusing on design means the at-table play experience is up in the air, while focusing on the at-table play experience means design should be largely settled. (Even in playtesting, you need to have a consistent ruleset for long enough to, y'know, actually [I]test[/I] the play experience, otherwise you don't learn anything.) Out of curiosity: How often do you play these non-D&D systems with people who are truly new to RPGs? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Assumptions about character creation
Top