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
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="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 5965952" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>But really what you are doing here is describing a design aesthetic that values intuitiveness and unified design. That is q great design approach but not the only one. And every approach will have flaws. I myself like working with unified mechanics. All the games we design try to follow intuitive patterns because we think it makes for easier gameplay and can be used to set up simple overal rules which behave in a predictable way. But it hasn't escaped me that I am trading something for that unification and ease of use. For example if you have to fit a single pattern over the whole game, say the same mechanic you use for attack rolls, skill rolls and damage rolls, it certainly makes it easier but it can place limits on your options as a designer (and there is always something to be said for different mechanics feeling different). So lets say I use a d10 dice pool for skills and now need a random encounter chart. Do i limit myself to d10s or pools of d10s because it is the core mechanic. I could do that (and ultimately I decided to do so) but another designer might have found a single d20 more suited for the kind of encounter chart he wanted to make. In areas of the game like damage, initiative, etc this becomes even more significant.</p><p></p><p>I like to point to NWPs and ability checks as an instance of counter intuitive design being a better choice (from my point of view) than an intuitive unified mechanic. Personally i wasn't a fan of d20s bringing every thing (i think with the exception of damage and a couple of other things) into the d20 roll. Most people don't agree, but I find in practice rolling under the ability score on NWP and ability checks is better than rolling d20+ modifer against target number for skills and ability checks. I think the math is much more contained and I think rolling under an ability for an ability check produces more attainable results than having to rely on your ability modifier (which never quite seemed enough for me). There are flaws with this approach and not everyone likes it. But when I went back to it after years of playing 3e, I was happy to jettison the whole d20 for everything. Same with initiative. Rolling low on a ten is a counter intuitive mechanic but produces highoy intuitive results (the GM just counts up from 1-10 for initiative rather than down from 20+.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 5965952, member: 85555"] But really what you are doing here is describing a design aesthetic that values intuitiveness and unified design. That is q great design approach but not the only one. And every approach will have flaws. I myself like working with unified mechanics. All the games we design try to follow intuitive patterns because we think it makes for easier gameplay and can be used to set up simple overal rules which behave in a predictable way. But it hasn't escaped me that I am trading something for that unification and ease of use. For example if you have to fit a single pattern over the whole game, say the same mechanic you use for attack rolls, skill rolls and damage rolls, it certainly makes it easier but it can place limits on your options as a designer (and there is always something to be said for different mechanics feeling different). So lets say I use a d10 dice pool for skills and now need a random encounter chart. Do i limit myself to d10s or pools of d10s because it is the core mechanic. I could do that (and ultimately I decided to do so) but another designer might have found a single d20 more suited for the kind of encounter chart he wanted to make. In areas of the game like damage, initiative, etc this becomes even more significant. I like to point to NWPs and ability checks as an instance of counter intuitive design being a better choice (from my point of view) than an intuitive unified mechanic. Personally i wasn't a fan of d20s bringing every thing (i think with the exception of damage and a couple of other things) into the d20 roll. Most people don't agree, but I find in practice rolling under the ability score on NWP and ability checks is better than rolling d20+ modifer against target number for skills and ability checks. I think the math is much more contained and I think rolling under an ability for an ability check produces more attainable results than having to rely on your ability modifier (which never quite seemed enough for me). There are flaws with this approach and not everyone likes it. But when I went back to it after years of playing 3e, I was happy to jettison the whole d20 for everything. Same with initiative. Rolling low on a ten is a counter intuitive mechanic but produces highoy intuitive results (the GM just counts up from 1-10 for initiative rather than down from 20+. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top