Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D species article
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: 9411419" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>You will note that I did not use the word "lazy." I referred to it as <em>bad</em> design, because that's exactly what it is, and I explained why it is bad, without simply declaring it so.</p><p></p><p>Game design is a technology and a technique. As a result, wholly apart from the aesthetic interests, it can be evaluated on at least two different measures: </p><p>(a) Does the design achieve the play-goals for which it was designed? AKA: Does the system do the thing it tells you it's supposed to do?</p><p>(b) Does the design make thrifty and/or wise use of the tools it employs? AKA: Are the parts executed well, regardless of whether they do what they're supposed to do?</p><p></p><p>Shoehorning the vast, vast majority of supernatural things into spells--for God's sake, they tried to make WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!--fails on both of these measures. In blindly shoving everything into a single box <em>allegedly</em> with the goal of making the system easier to approach, it actually makes the system <em>harder</em> to approach, because now, new players need to have reasonably deep knowledge of the spells system in order to make effective characters in the VAST majority of situations. Stuffing so many things into one ill-fitting basket does not make them easier to learn, particularly given how ludicrously diverse "spells" are as a category. </p><p></p><p>And as for "thrift," the only thrift is in slimming down every chapter that isn't the spells chapter...which, by the way, the chapters dedicated to spells (how they work, and then the list thereof) are the lion's share of the PHB. It's neither thrifty nor wise, doubly so when (at least prior to the last couple years) they didn't even print creatures with the text of the spells they know, just the names. Cue continuous book-flipping, or digital lookup (or, I guess, pre-printed text the DM had to prepare for herself), just to run a single combat.</p><p></p><p>As both an exercise in the technology of designing games, and as a demonstration of game design technique, the absolute kindest thing you can say about 5e is that it is a hot mess, and the fact that they try to shove <em>nearly everything</em> into "spells" is one of the greater errors the design team has committed to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9411419, member: 6790260"] You will note that I did not use the word "lazy." I referred to it as [I]bad[/I] design, because that's exactly what it is, and I explained why it is bad, without simply declaring it so. Game design is a technology and a technique. As a result, wholly apart from the aesthetic interests, it can be evaluated on at least two different measures: (a) Does the design achieve the play-goals for which it was designed? AKA: Does the system do the thing it tells you it's supposed to do? (b) Does the design make thrifty and/or wise use of the tools it employs? AKA: Are the parts executed well, regardless of whether they do what they're supposed to do? Shoehorning the vast, vast majority of supernatural things into spells--for God's sake, they tried to make WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!--fails on both of these measures. In blindly shoving everything into a single box [I]allegedly[/I] with the goal of making the system easier to approach, it actually makes the system [I]harder[/I] to approach, because now, new players need to have reasonably deep knowledge of the spells system in order to make effective characters in the VAST majority of situations. Stuffing so many things into one ill-fitting basket does not make them easier to learn, particularly given how ludicrously diverse "spells" are as a category. And as for "thrift," the only thrift is in slimming down every chapter that isn't the spells chapter...which, by the way, the chapters dedicated to spells (how they work, and then the list thereof) are the lion's share of the PHB. It's neither thrifty nor wise, doubly so when (at least prior to the last couple years) they didn't even print creatures with the text of the spells they know, just the names. Cue continuous book-flipping, or digital lookup (or, I guess, pre-printed text the DM had to prepare for herself), just to run a single combat. As both an exercise in the technology of designing games, and as a demonstration of game design technique, the absolute kindest thing you can say about 5e is that it is a hot mess, and the fact that they try to shove [I]nearly everything[/I] into "spells" is one of the greater errors the design team has committed to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D species article
Top