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
DMG 5.5 - the return of bespoke magical items?
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: 9501020" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Ah, yes. <em>Optional rules</em>, and things that can apply to anyone and thus must be portioned out with a bias toward non-casters. Gotta love when the stuff that makes non-casters rise to the occasion is something a lot of groups will completely ignore or which push the DM to play favorites, while the stuff that does that for casters is hard-coded into their class structure and work perfectly fine unless the DM is actively antagonistic. Really emphasizes just how much these classes are peers, dunnit?</p><p></p><p>For real though, I hope you can see how this answer is not satisfactory. It is an admission that casters have a built-in advantage, which must then be counteracted by either inserting wholly optional rules, or by having the DM actively work <em>against</em> the game's design, showing favor to one side in order to level the playing field.</p><p></p><p>Why couldn't we instead have a game that doesn't <em>require</em> the DM to level the playing field, and instead allows them to let the chips fall where they may, so that skill (and, if necessary, luck) are the determining factors, rather than DM favoritism?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. That's fair. I appreciate, though, that we can agree that over-zealous pursuit of anything--balance, verisimilitude, "feel", etc.--can have negative consequences for a game. That's a surprisingly difficult point to get any agreement on these days.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Everything about game design is psychological. You are trying to elicit particular experiences. By definition, player psychology is <em>the</em> concern.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Should we design a game that is a natural fit for the most common approach, while still offering well-structured methods for the stuff that isn't as popular?</p><p></p><p>Or should we design a game that is totally agnostic about playstyle, trying to pretend that vague, noncommittal rules will serve all parties well?</p><p></p><p>The latter certainly serves all tastes equally, but it does so by being equally unhelpful. I would much, much rather a game commit to a particular set of design goals, while recognizing that those goals are not universal and thus offering tools and advice for moving in other directions. That's why I support novice levels, and both tools and advice for wandering monster tables, and a section on hex-grid mapping, etc., even though none of those things have any direct utility for me. They have indirect utility, because they support tastes that are not mine, but that are both traditional and appreciated today.</p><p></p><p>Baking in as the core premise an idea that only really works in a sandbox environment, when the substantial majority do not <em>use</em> a sandbox environment, is not conducive to an effective product. That absolutely is not, and must not ever be, an excuse to leave sandbox players high and dry; it is instead a matter of setting priorities, and of examining which approaches are easier or more difficult to implement through opt-in vs opt-out design. Ultra-lethal low levels are best as an opt-in, because low levels are also expected to serve the needs of new players being gently introduced to the game (and it is neither fair nor reasonable <em>to DMs</em> to demand that all of them, new or otherwise, put on kid gloves for new players.) Well-constructed encounter building guidelines are best as an opt-out, because just as there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you use errata or whatever, there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you build encounters in any predefined way: you can elect to make any kind of combat you want, but you cannot elect to gain more information about how difficult a fight will be than what the game actually provides.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9501020, member: 6790260"] Ah, yes. [I]Optional rules[/I], and things that can apply to anyone and thus must be portioned out with a bias toward non-casters. Gotta love when the stuff that makes non-casters rise to the occasion is something a lot of groups will completely ignore or which push the DM to play favorites, while the stuff that does that for casters is hard-coded into their class structure and work perfectly fine unless the DM is actively antagonistic. Really emphasizes just how much these classes are peers, dunnit? For real though, I hope you can see how this answer is not satisfactory. It is an admission that casters have a built-in advantage, which must then be counteracted by either inserting wholly optional rules, or by having the DM actively work [I]against[/I] the game's design, showing favor to one side in order to level the playing field. Why couldn't we instead have a game that doesn't [I]require[/I] the DM to level the playing field, and instead allows them to let the chips fall where they may, so that skill (and, if necessary, luck) are the determining factors, rather than DM favoritism? Okay. That's fair. I appreciate, though, that we can agree that over-zealous pursuit of anything--balance, verisimilitude, "feel", etc.--can have negative consequences for a game. That's a surprisingly difficult point to get any agreement on these days. Everything about game design is psychological. You are trying to elicit particular experiences. By definition, player psychology is [I]the[/I] concern. Should we design a game that is a natural fit for the most common approach, while still offering well-structured methods for the stuff that isn't as popular? Or should we design a game that is totally agnostic about playstyle, trying to pretend that vague, noncommittal rules will serve all parties well? The latter certainly serves all tastes equally, but it does so by being equally unhelpful. I would much, much rather a game commit to a particular set of design goals, while recognizing that those goals are not universal and thus offering tools and advice for moving in other directions. That's why I support novice levels, and both tools and advice for wandering monster tables, and a section on hex-grid mapping, etc., even though none of those things have any direct utility for me. They have indirect utility, because they support tastes that are not mine, but that are both traditional and appreciated today. Baking in as the core premise an idea that only really works in a sandbox environment, when the substantial majority do not [I]use[/I] a sandbox environment, is not conducive to an effective product. That absolutely is not, and must not ever be, an excuse to leave sandbox players high and dry; it is instead a matter of setting priorities, and of examining which approaches are easier or more difficult to implement through opt-in vs opt-out design. Ultra-lethal low levels are best as an opt-in, because low levels are also expected to serve the needs of new players being gently introduced to the game (and it is neither fair nor reasonable [I]to DMs[/I] to demand that all of them, new or otherwise, put on kid gloves for new players.) Well-constructed encounter building guidelines are best as an opt-out, because just as there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you use errata or whatever, there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you build encounters in any predefined way: you can elect to make any kind of combat you want, but you cannot elect to gain more information about how difficult a fight will be than what the game actually provides. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMG 5.5 - the return of bespoke magical items?
Top