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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!
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="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4110378" data-attributes="member: 5143"><p>I'm not sure I see the problem with designing the game that people want to play rather than designing a world that might be no fun to play at all.</p><p></p><p>Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time:</p><p></p><p>-Playing a fighter is boring since all you can do is swing a weapon over and over again. But it makes sense, because someone without magical powers can't do anything more extravagant</p><p>-Player a cleric is boring since all you do is heal. But it's realistic since it takes time to chant a prayer and put your hands on someone and there's no way for a non-magical class like a fighter to heal itself</p><p>-Save or die is no fun, you spend a year playing the same character and building him up to 15th level only to drop dead on the first round of combat against a random encounter. But it's realistic since creatures that turn you to stone should either work or not, no inbetween.</p><p></p><p>Designing the other way around creates the exact gameplay experience that people want in exchange for having to explain it in a way that might be a bit of a stretch.</p><p></p><p>Instead you get a situation where someone sits down and says "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a class where you could coordinate your allies in a way that made them better. To actually be the battlefield commander. You could inspire them to greater heroics, get them into tactical positions and inspire them to keep going after taking damage." And you end up with the Warlord. Which is a fun class to play. Once you roll for initiative and start thinking about how best to use your powers, you realize that there is a gameplay experience that is rather unique, new, and fun to play.</p><p></p><p>It, however, wouldn't be possible if constrained to the first way of designing. The first way of designing says that just talking to someone can't bring back hitpoints, move people into a position faster than they could get there themselves, or give allies abilities they didn't have before. That just doesn't make any sense. Only magic can do that.</p><p></p><p>And that's a shame to miss out on fun simply because fun isn't allowed to happen if it doesn't "make sense".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 4110378, member: 5143"] I'm not sure I see the problem with designing the game that people want to play rather than designing a world that might be no fun to play at all. Designing from a point of view of "realism" first, mechanics after creates situations like we've had in past editions that I hear people complaining about all the time: -Playing a fighter is boring since all you can do is swing a weapon over and over again. But it makes sense, because someone without magical powers can't do anything more extravagant -Player a cleric is boring since all you do is heal. But it's realistic since it takes time to chant a prayer and put your hands on someone and there's no way for a non-magical class like a fighter to heal itself -Save or die is no fun, you spend a year playing the same character and building him up to 15th level only to drop dead on the first round of combat against a random encounter. But it's realistic since creatures that turn you to stone should either work or not, no inbetween. Designing the other way around creates the exact gameplay experience that people want in exchange for having to explain it in a way that might be a bit of a stretch. Instead you get a situation where someone sits down and says "Wouldn't it be cool if there was a class where you could coordinate your allies in a way that made them better. To actually be the battlefield commander. You could inspire them to greater heroics, get them into tactical positions and inspire them to keep going after taking damage." And you end up with the Warlord. Which is a fun class to play. Once you roll for initiative and start thinking about how best to use your powers, you realize that there is a gameplay experience that is rather unique, new, and fun to play. It, however, wouldn't be possible if constrained to the first way of designing. The first way of designing says that just talking to someone can't bring back hitpoints, move people into a position faster than they could get there themselves, or give allies abilities they didn't have before. That just doesn't make any sense. Only magic can do that. And that's a shame to miss out on fun simply because fun isn't allowed to happen if it doesn't "make sense". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!
Top