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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
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="Thaumaturge" data-source="post: 6320854" data-attributes="member: 1927"><p>Thank you all for the good discussion so far.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has mentioned he might do a public post-mortem of the 5e design and playtest process some day. I hope he does. It would be fascinating.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm quoting this part for you to remind us all you said this as well as the "badwrongfun" part. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree they shouldn't, for instance, make fun of people who want 5 minute short rests. Neither should they ridicule people who want 8 hour short rests. Those are different play styles people genuinely like for various reasons.</p><p></p><p>However, if the designers think a style of play is boring and they have that supposition backed up by player feedback, I'm okay with them calling it boring. It helps if I agree, certainly. But I like tracking spell components, and they think that's boring, too. That's fine. It probably is. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with your distinction. I disagree with your point that Mearls was referencing rules (I almost brought up which rules) that don't work as intended. My take from what he said was, /shrug "working as intended". If people want to play that way they may, we aren't going to stop them. That seems different from saying, "magic missile is awesome when we didn't want it to be? Oh well."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I agree. I just interpret him as saying "this is only a problem for a boring group (not a bad group) and even then it's not a problem because they like to play in a way I find boring". (Not an actual quote, just me making stuff up).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good analogy. I, too, want a picket fence.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree. I think this is why Mearls, in his latest L&L article, mentioned annual surveys to see if things were <em>actually</em> problems in <em>actual</em> play. That seems huge. Instead of seeing bag-o-rats as a problem discussed on boards and then implementing changes, they are going to ask people, "hey, is bag-o-rats a problem at your table". Then they'll only fix things when people respond in the affirmative.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, see above.</p><p></p><p>I've also been reflecting that the approach to rules for the last couple of editions was more rules-as-science (RaS), and for 5e and earlier editions it was more rules-as-art (RaA). The former is less hospitable to inexact language. The latter sometimes prefers inexact language, as it lets individual tables have individual experiences.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this was their only real path to survival.</p><p></p><p> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad :mad:" data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow. Welcome to the hobby.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad :mad:" data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /></p><p><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I went through this exact change. And now I'm back. I hope to stay this time. More precise language seems to breed an expectation of exactness. </p><p></p><p>Thaumaturge.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thaumaturge, post: 6320854, member: 1927"] Thank you all for the good discussion so far. [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has mentioned he might do a public post-mortem of the 5e design and playtest process some day. I hope he does. It would be fascinating. I'm quoting this part for you to remind us all you said this as well as the "badwrongfun" part. :) I agree they shouldn't, for instance, make fun of people who want 5 minute short rests. Neither should they ridicule people who want 8 hour short rests. Those are different play styles people genuinely like for various reasons. However, if the designers think a style of play is boring and they have that supposition backed up by player feedback, I'm okay with them calling it boring. It helps if I agree, certainly. But I like tracking spell components, and they think that's boring, too. That's fine. It probably is. B-) I agree with your distinction. I disagree with your point that Mearls was referencing rules (I almost brought up which rules) that don't work as intended. My take from what he said was, /shrug "working as intended". If people want to play that way they may, we aren't going to stop them. That seems different from saying, "magic missile is awesome when we didn't want it to be? Oh well." Again, I agree. I just interpret him as saying "this is only a problem for a boring group (not a bad group) and even then it's not a problem because they like to play in a way I find boring". (Not an actual quote, just me making stuff up). Good analogy. I, too, want a picket fence. I agree. I think this is why Mearls, in his latest L&L article, mentioned annual surveys to see if things were [I]actually[/I] problems in [I]actual[/I] play. That seems huge. Instead of seeing bag-o-rats as a problem discussed on boards and then implementing changes, they are going to ask people, "hey, is bag-o-rats a problem at your table". Then they'll only fix things when people respond in the affirmative. Agreed, see above. I've also been reflecting that the approach to rules for the last couple of editions was more rules-as-science (RaS), and for 5e and earlier editions it was more rules-as-art (RaA). The former is less hospitable to inexact language. The latter sometimes prefers inexact language, as it lets individual tables have individual experiences. I think this was their only real path to survival. :mad: Wow. Welcome to the hobby. :mad: :p :D I went through this exact change. And now I'm back. I hope to stay this time. More precise language seems to breed an expectation of exactness. Thaumaturge. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top