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
DMs Expectations for Next
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5979399" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Compromises are often things that both parties can agree to hate equally. <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'm not inclined to optimism, myself, but this is an interesting challenge: </p><p></p><p></p><p>'Reasonably functional and simple' dovetails well with 'characters cannot be playing wildly different games at any point.' If we're willing to accept that functionality is important, balance can be a part of that, and simplicity aids balance, as well - There we have basis for class designs and more detailed 'build' rules that could fill both your requirements. Taken to the extreme, an 'open ended' character-creation system /couldn't/ be class based, classes just aren't that open-ended - and I'm sure 5e couldn't be taken to that extreme (nor would either of you want that). So the open-endedness would have to come from non-class options (races, kits, themes, PrCs, backgrounds, or whatever) and from multi-classing of some sort. Allowing swapping in/out/around abilities from multiple sources like that would require that any ability that can be swapped out for another be /balanced/ with that other ability, which, if done well, would also deliver on that 'clear sense of what characters can do at all levels.' </p><p></p><p>"Routinely expectation-defying" seems a little contradictory to me. <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=";)" /> There is some room for compromise, here. For instance, you don't object to monster design being independent of party composition. Easy-to-create and 'detailed' aren't mutually exclusive, as long as the level of detail isn't fixed by mechanical necessity, but left to the DM. A formulaic 'base' for monster design for a given role/level wouldn't get in the way of an exception-based approach to monster abilities that'd make it easy for DMs to throw in 'surprising' monsters, even to the point of all their monsters being 'surprising,' every time.</p><p></p><p>I actually see a lot of potential for reconciling these two views. A functional (fun/interesting/balanced) system makes a fine base-line for customization, as well as being playable in it's own right. Whether you're adding mechanics or adding RP, it doesn't hurt to be adding to something that already works.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5979399, member: 996"] Compromises are often things that both parties can agree to hate equally. ;) I'm not inclined to optimism, myself, but this is an interesting challenge: 'Reasonably functional and simple' dovetails well with 'characters cannot be playing wildly different games at any point.' If we're willing to accept that functionality is important, balance can be a part of that, and simplicity aids balance, as well - There we have basis for class designs and more detailed 'build' rules that could fill both your requirements. Taken to the extreme, an 'open ended' character-creation system /couldn't/ be class based, classes just aren't that open-ended - and I'm sure 5e couldn't be taken to that extreme (nor would either of you want that). So the open-endedness would have to come from non-class options (races, kits, themes, PrCs, backgrounds, or whatever) and from multi-classing of some sort. Allowing swapping in/out/around abilities from multiple sources like that would require that any ability that can be swapped out for another be /balanced/ with that other ability, which, if done well, would also deliver on that 'clear sense of what characters can do at all levels.' "Routinely expectation-defying" seems a little contradictory to me. ;) There is some room for compromise, here. For instance, you don't object to monster design being independent of party composition. Easy-to-create and 'detailed' aren't mutually exclusive, as long as the level of detail isn't fixed by mechanical necessity, but left to the DM. A formulaic 'base' for monster design for a given role/level wouldn't get in the way of an exception-based approach to monster abilities that'd make it easy for DMs to throw in 'surprising' monsters, even to the point of all their monsters being 'surprising,' every time. I actually see a lot of potential for reconciling these two views. A functional (fun/interesting/balanced) system makes a fine base-line for customization, as well as being playable in it's own right. Whether you're adding mechanics or adding RP, it doesn't hurt to be adding to something that already works. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMs Expectations for Next
Top