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
D&D Combat is fictionless
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="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8421268" data-attributes="member: 7032025"><p>Says everyone with a bit of logic and understanding how body and mind works during and after effort. I don't eat the same thing when I'm running a marathon and recovering from it, for example. And people might incite me to sprint at the end, but I will collapse if it goes on for too long, and it will go the opposite way of my recovery, it will make me stronger for a short while but will make my recovery harder.</p><p></p><p>Note that I'm on purpose taking a purely physical exercise, because we are talking about martial powers, it's clear that magic can do whatever it wants.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The designers made a simpler choice in 4e (but to me a better one in 5e, clearly separating both). But it certainly means that the game formats the fantasy, whereas I prefer it the other way around.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And then, I find it really sad that, instead of having abilities which are the signature of an archetype, it gets spread around, like people don't have enough imagination or liberty in the system to imagine something else. And the other classes do not need this in 5e, they indeed have their own ways of dealing with this, between the barbarian's rage, the fighter's second Wind, and the Paladin's Lay on Hands, all iconic and all fitting perfectly their archetype and their power source.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>SInce you don't have a problem with it and it's a vast debate that goes way beyond this thread, I will drop the general subject of player agency.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And for me, this is bad game design, having abilities which have an automatic effect without any defense, especially a bad effect like this, which means that whatever you do to target, you will choose wrong, and this works on anyone in the world ? There is no justification for this, whether in terms of game design or in terms of player fun, it's only a technical gamemaster's tool to punish the player without giving them any chance. Bad design.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Only it does not work that way, it also does damage (and again, why) ? And it also affects a zone, so why would that character be affected that way ? And what about remaining movement for the character ? Honestly, I find it significant that you play an edition which is so formal about rules and movement and constraints and, in the end, ignore the way it is structured because it gets in the way of your narration, others example below. You ignore the 4e rules like dying or movement or triggers or effects when it suits you (which is fine) but at the same time you have a very technical game (see the examples where the number of squares are justified to a great level of detail).</p><p></p><p>It's good that you find your fun that way, but for me it's much easier to be freeform (if it's what you are looking for) in a game that is much less formal to start with, that's all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It sort of does, what happens to his choices of movement ? before and after the effect, for example ?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You can describe it whatever way you like, but still it's another example of pure technical design. Why is this triggered by someone specifically shifting ? And not simply moving ? And why does a charm just move a target ? It's all bizarre and technical and justified backward from the technicalities of a power invented to technically surprise someone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh my god, it is so technical. But still with you ignoring rules when you feel like it. As mentioned above, I have found that playing freeform and story-oriented works better with a lighter more free-form game, but it seems that it's not only that, you also enjoy extremely tactical gaming, while at the same time your players seem to roll in with arbitrary decisions by the DM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I'm sorry, but multiple examples show that, technically, you player the game incorrectly. However, practically, you played the game right, because you were having fun. As for ourselves, we tried to play the game as designed, so technically we were right, and simply did not have as much fun with it as we had with other editions, and, frankly, 4e is not suited to modifications on the fly, if you start unraveling a principle, you end up with more questions than where you started. But it's good if your players and yourself have an agreement about this. </p><p></p><p>But I still disagree that this is the way the game is meant to be played. AFAIK, there's no section about simple ad hoc rulings, it's all about the formal rules from beginning to end, and designing house rules is extremely formal, and it even challenges you about why you want to make the change to the core rules. And it needs to be written down. It is the most formal edition of the game ever.</p><p></p><p>How to be a Dungeon Masters starts with "A competitive sport has referees. It needs them. Someone impartial involved in the game needs to make sure everyone’s playing by the rules." That section is all about the rules. Compare to 5e: "A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other</p><p>players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."</p><p></p><p>The role of referee comes last, and it's all about interpretation, deciding to abide and change them. Totally different philosophies here (and again, I'm not judging the quality of that, just the intended design and what it means for the types of game best suited to an edition).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8421268, member: 7032025"] Says everyone with a bit of logic and understanding how body and mind works during and after effort. I don't eat the same thing when I'm running a marathon and recovering from it, for example. And people might incite me to sprint at the end, but I will collapse if it goes on for too long, and it will go the opposite way of my recovery, it will make me stronger for a short while but will make my recovery harder. Note that I'm on purpose taking a purely physical exercise, because we are talking about martial powers, it's clear that magic can do whatever it wants. The designers made a simpler choice in 4e (but to me a better one in 5e, clearly separating both). But it certainly means that the game formats the fantasy, whereas I prefer it the other way around. And then, I find it really sad that, instead of having abilities which are the signature of an archetype, it gets spread around, like people don't have enough imagination or liberty in the system to imagine something else. And the other classes do not need this in 5e, they indeed have their own ways of dealing with this, between the barbarian's rage, the fighter's second Wind, and the Paladin's Lay on Hands, all iconic and all fitting perfectly their archetype and their power source. SInce you don't have a problem with it and it's a vast debate that goes way beyond this thread, I will drop the general subject of player agency. And for me, this is bad game design, having abilities which have an automatic effect without any defense, especially a bad effect like this, which means that whatever you do to target, you will choose wrong, and this works on anyone in the world ? There is no justification for this, whether in terms of game design or in terms of player fun, it's only a technical gamemaster's tool to punish the player without giving them any chance. Bad design. Only it does not work that way, it also does damage (and again, why) ? And it also affects a zone, so why would that character be affected that way ? And what about remaining movement for the character ? Honestly, I find it significant that you play an edition which is so formal about rules and movement and constraints and, in the end, ignore the way it is structured because it gets in the way of your narration, others example below. You ignore the 4e rules like dying or movement or triggers or effects when it suits you (which is fine) but at the same time you have a very technical game (see the examples where the number of squares are justified to a great level of detail). It's good that you find your fun that way, but for me it's much easier to be freeform (if it's what you are looking for) in a game that is much less formal to start with, that's all. It sort of does, what happens to his choices of movement ? before and after the effect, for example ? You can describe it whatever way you like, but still it's another example of pure technical design. Why is this triggered by someone specifically shifting ? And not simply moving ? And why does a charm just move a target ? It's all bizarre and technical and justified backward from the technicalities of a power invented to technically surprise someone. Oh my god, it is so technical. But still with you ignoring rules when you feel like it. As mentioned above, I have found that playing freeform and story-oriented works better with a lighter more free-form game, but it seems that it's not only that, you also enjoy extremely tactical gaming, while at the same time your players seem to roll in with arbitrary decisions by the DM. No, I'm sorry, but multiple examples show that, technically, you player the game incorrectly. However, practically, you played the game right, because you were having fun. As for ourselves, we tried to play the game as designed, so technically we were right, and simply did not have as much fun with it as we had with other editions, and, frankly, 4e is not suited to modifications on the fly, if you start unraveling a principle, you end up with more questions than where you started. But it's good if your players and yourself have an agreement about this. But I still disagree that this is the way the game is meant to be played. AFAIK, there's no section about simple ad hoc rulings, it's all about the formal rules from beginning to end, and designing house rules is extremely formal, and it even challenges you about why you want to make the change to the core rules. And it needs to be written down. It is the most formal edition of the game ever. How to be a Dungeon Masters starts with "A competitive sport has referees. It needs them. Someone impartial involved in the game needs to make sure everyone’s playing by the rules." That section is all about the rules. Compare to 5e: "A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players' characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them." The role of referee comes last, and it's all about interpretation, deciding to abide and change them. Totally different philosophies here (and again, I'm not judging the quality of that, just the intended design and what it means for the types of game best suited to an edition). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Combat is fictionless
Top