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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5958919" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I <em>have</em> read your post... </p><p></p><p>You wrote: "<em>I mean "objectively" worse in the literal sense. It isn't a matter of perspective. Games have design goals, and how well they accomplish them can be objectively evaluated.</em>"</p><p></p><p>But you make it sound like you just hate the idea of a game that doesn't have the design goal of game A, because you're trying to prove that the design goal of game B can never succeed (your point 2. that in your own words is "<em>virtually impossible to accomplish</em>"). That to me did not sound at all like you were proving that game B failed its design goal, but rather that you believe that it is such design goal which is "objectively" inferior. That's the message that I received from your post at least...</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Maybe I'm getting this wrong again, but you seem very worried that if a game doesn't have the design goal of game A, then it inevitably ends with people having nothing to do for hours at the gaming table...</p><p></p><p>Well, if you have a game the combats of which last hours, then you're right that this is what would probably happen to some players if the game did not have such concept of balance as "everybody useful all the time". </p><p></p><p>But that is not what happens if the design goal is different, because the game (obviously if the design work is good, of course!) will tend to avoid focusing too long on one situation.</p><p></p><p>Also I am, on the other hand, worried that if you choose such design goal as game A (like 4e did), then the game will probably focus too much on combat, because it will be the phase that will be easier to balance.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>There is also another, more subtle concern of mine. That if you choose such design goal of "everybody good all the time", this may actually highlight differences in players' abilities too much. (It may also highlight differences in luck at character generation, but this is easily solved by using a point-buy system) What I mean is that, an excellent player may even overshadow the others all the time... I know it sounds like a paradox, but if each character shines at a different time, there will be times when each player will be encouraged to take the spotlight, but if everyone takes the same share of spotlight all the time, some players may actually become frustrated in the presence of someone who plays better than the others all the time.</p><p></p><p>I would understand if you consider such event actually a good thing. On one hand it can be interpreted as rewarding a better player. But personally I wouldn't like to be on either end of this case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5958919, member: 1465"] I [I]have[/I] read your post... You wrote: "[I]I mean "objectively" worse in the literal sense. It isn't a matter of perspective. Games have design goals, and how well they accomplish them can be objectively evaluated.[/I]" But you make it sound like you just hate the idea of a game that doesn't have the design goal of game A, because you're trying to prove that the design goal of game B can never succeed (your point 2. that in your own words is "[I]virtually impossible to accomplish[/I]"). That to me did not sound at all like you were proving that game B failed its design goal, but rather that you believe that it is such design goal which is "objectively" inferior. That's the message that I received from your post at least... --- Maybe I'm getting this wrong again, but you seem very worried that if a game doesn't have the design goal of game A, then it inevitably ends with people having nothing to do for hours at the gaming table... Well, if you have a game the combats of which last hours, then you're right that this is what would probably happen to some players if the game did not have such concept of balance as "everybody useful all the time". But that is not what happens if the design goal is different, because the game (obviously if the design work is good, of course!) will tend to avoid focusing too long on one situation. Also I am, on the other hand, worried that if you choose such design goal as game A (like 4e did), then the game will probably focus too much on combat, because it will be the phase that will be easier to balance. --- There is also another, more subtle concern of mine. That if you choose such design goal of "everybody good all the time", this may actually highlight differences in players' abilities too much. (It may also highlight differences in luck at character generation, but this is easily solved by using a point-buy system) What I mean is that, an excellent player may even overshadow the others all the time... I know it sounds like a paradox, but if each character shines at a different time, there will be times when each player will be encouraged to take the spotlight, but if everyone takes the same share of spotlight all the time, some players may actually become frustrated in the presence of someone who plays better than the others all the time. I would understand if you consider such event actually a good thing. On one hand it can be interpreted as rewarding a better player. But personally I wouldn't like to be on either end of this case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top