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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6320904" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>I think it's troubling when there's a failure to recognize the psychology behind WHY people choose to play the game in these different ways, when instead the reaction is a dismissal. Like, there's a VALUE to tracking spell components -- it serves a purpose. That value may be more or less valuable than the value of getting rid of that assumption for certain target groups, but the designers should dang well realize that they are getting rid of something that has a constructive point when they get rid of it. </p><p></p><p>Even if only 1% of your audience tracked spell components, the designers should realize WHY they find that a useful addition to their games, and not just write it off as "oh, that's boring."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>/shrug "If people are only going to use the magic missile spell, it's boring, but we aren't going to stop them."</p><p></p><p>To me, it seems pretty clear that the rule mearls referenced wasn't intended to be used in the way discussed, but that they could be, and there is incentive for them to be (in certain circumstances). Similarly, MM > FB would be unintentional, and there would be an incentive for that (even though in certain circumstances FB might still be used, or MM might be used less), and if the reaction was as above, I'd be making pretty much the same point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's really my main point, so I think we're in broad agreement. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I just noticed a lot of reactions to pointing out a potential problem falling into the camp of "If you think it's a problem, the problem is YOU," starting with Mearls's initial reaction. And I find that position...problematic, if one is serious about it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think your Player 1 would be better served saying "OK, we'll change it here, but this rule should be changed! I mean, officially! Because what if we're not the only people with this problem?" which is a more constructive outcome there. And then come discuss it on ENWorld! <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=":)" /> Though some certainly get stuck in the loop of simply saying it's bad and we should feel bad. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but can we examine why you think that it's "normal" and why the designers might share that bias and what blind spots those biases can create? That's the meat of that convo. It's not about taking offense to take offense, but about seeing how the process broke down and what might be improved next time to better take this into account.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The implied their intention 45 minutes into a 1 hour YouTube video. They should state it <em>in the rules they're writing</em>. They certainly didn't do that, it would seem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6320904, member: 2067"] I think it's troubling when there's a failure to recognize the psychology behind WHY people choose to play the game in these different ways, when instead the reaction is a dismissal. Like, there's a VALUE to tracking spell components -- it serves a purpose. That value may be more or less valuable than the value of getting rid of that assumption for certain target groups, but the designers should dang well realize that they are getting rid of something that has a constructive point when they get rid of it. Even if only 1% of your audience tracked spell components, the designers should realize WHY they find that a useful addition to their games, and not just write it off as "oh, that's boring." /shrug "If people are only going to use the magic missile spell, it's boring, but we aren't going to stop them." To me, it seems pretty clear that the rule mearls referenced wasn't intended to be used in the way discussed, but that they could be, and there is incentive for them to be (in certain circumstances). Similarly, MM > FB would be unintentional, and there would be an incentive for that (even though in certain circumstances FB might still be used, or MM might be used less), and if the reaction was as above, I'd be making pretty much the same point. That's really my main point, so I think we're in broad agreement. ;) I just noticed a lot of reactions to pointing out a potential problem falling into the camp of "If you think it's a problem, the problem is YOU," starting with Mearls's initial reaction. And I find that position...problematic, if one is serious about it. I think your Player 1 would be better served saying "OK, we'll change it here, but this rule should be changed! I mean, officially! Because what if we're not the only people with this problem?" which is a more constructive outcome there. And then come discuss it on ENWorld! :) Though some certainly get stuck in the loop of simply saying it's bad and we should feel bad. Sure, but can we examine why you think that it's "normal" and why the designers might share that bias and what blind spots those biases can create? That's the meat of that convo. It's not about taking offense to take offense, but about seeing how the process broke down and what might be improved next time to better take this into account. The implied their intention 45 minutes into a 1 hour YouTube video. They should state it [I]in the rules they're writing[/I]. They certainly didn't do that, it would seem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top