Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you care how about "PC balance"?
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="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8055654" data-attributes="member: 7019027"><p>These discussions usually go into the philosophy of system design in games, which is extremely interesting.</p><p></p><p>What a system provides for its players depends on the intentions of the designers.</p><p></p><p>It should be noted that while a system needs something to provide, it is not obligated to provide any single design philosophy. There have been several design philosophies discussed in this thread, and while alot of them are valiant and deserves some attention in games, these design philosophies may not be what the designers agree with.</p><p></p><p>I've seen "uniqueness" to be something some people care alot for. An ability that no other character shares. Others want equality. Others want a very tight sense of balance while others would prefer balance to be loose. </p><p></p><p>The thing about these philosophies is that approaching all of them is a fool's errand. It's <em>possible</em>, but we aren't talking about checking them off, we're talking about doing all of them so well that <em>nobody</em> is going to complain. And that's not even something I can imagine happening. </p><p></p><p>So what is there for a designer to do? It's like a car manufacturer getting a request from a buyer. They want the <em>fastest</em> car, and it has to be the <em>toughest</em>, and it has to be the <em>best looking</em>, and it has to be <em>efficient</em>, and it has to be <em>cheap.</em> </p><p></p><p>Well, that is <em>the</em> ideal car, isn't it? Unfortunately, all of these cannot exist altogether. It can exist in the fictional world of theoreticals and imagination, but here, in the real world, if a car is built with the toughest material it won't be lightweight enough to be fast. If we find a material that can be both toughest and lightweight, it probably looks ugly. If we make it attractive and efficient, it definitely will not be cheap. </p><p></p><p>So a car manufacturer has to ask what's <em>the</em> most important aspect of a car and they rank the design based on the customers wants. </p><p></p><p>Likewise, WOTC had to listen to what other people wanted from D&D and rank what was most important. It appears that simplicity was the design choice, but I think it might have been it's more attractive younger brother–Accessibility. What people want from D&D the most, it would seem, is to be able to play it with friends. But people have low attention spans because they work a <em>minimum</em> of 9-5 jobs and they have kids and they have spouses, etc. They don't have time to flip through pages upon pages of instructions to have fun playing a game. The market is competing against better storytellers than DM's in movies and books, videogames, and other sources of media. If people don't have time to invest in D&D, it may as well have not existed. It's why pathfinder is harder to get people along. It's not <em>that</em> hard, but it's alot harder to pick up and play, and almost impossible to go in blind with a few optimizing friends and feel as powerful as them. </p><p></p><p>But what about players that want alot of balance and uniqueness in their games above accessibility? Well, why re-invent a wheel catered to these people? It isn't about gatekeeping or kicking people out of 5e, it's about the fact that revamping a system that is already out wouldn't be as lucrative as making a new system where both types of players have something to play. 3.5e didn't disappear from your book collection, you still have their DMG, PHB, and MM. </p><p></p><p>But if you want to find joy in 5e, that's a fair request. It's impossible to please everyone, though. Sometimes, you're just unlucky enough to not be the type of player catered to by the system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Asisreo, post: 8055654, member: 7019027"] These discussions usually go into the philosophy of system design in games, which is extremely interesting. What a system provides for its players depends on the intentions of the designers. It should be noted that while a system needs something to provide, it is not obligated to provide any single design philosophy. There have been several design philosophies discussed in this thread, and while alot of them are valiant and deserves some attention in games, these design philosophies may not be what the designers agree with. I've seen "uniqueness" to be something some people care alot for. An ability that no other character shares. Others want equality. Others want a very tight sense of balance while others would prefer balance to be loose. The thing about these philosophies is that approaching all of them is a fool's errand. It's [I]possible[/I], but we aren't talking about checking them off, we're talking about doing all of them so well that [I]nobody[/I] is going to complain. And that's not even something I can imagine happening. So what is there for a designer to do? It's like a car manufacturer getting a request from a buyer. They want the [I]fastest[/I] car, and it has to be the [I]toughest[/I], and it has to be the [I]best looking[/I], and it has to be [I]efficient[/I], and it has to be [I]cheap.[/I] Well, that is [I]the[/I] ideal car, isn't it? Unfortunately, all of these cannot exist altogether. It can exist in the fictional world of theoreticals and imagination, but here, in the real world, if a car is built with the toughest material it won't be lightweight enough to be fast. If we find a material that can be both toughest and lightweight, it probably looks ugly. If we make it attractive and efficient, it definitely will not be cheap. So a car manufacturer has to ask what's [I]the[/I] most important aspect of a car and they rank the design based on the customers wants. Likewise, WOTC had to listen to what other people wanted from D&D and rank what was most important. It appears that simplicity was the design choice, but I think it might have been it's more attractive younger brother–Accessibility. What people want from D&D the most, it would seem, is to be able to play it with friends. But people have low attention spans because they work a [I]minimum[/I] of 9-5 jobs and they have kids and they have spouses, etc. They don't have time to flip through pages upon pages of instructions to have fun playing a game. The market is competing against better storytellers than DM's in movies and books, videogames, and other sources of media. If people don't have time to invest in D&D, it may as well have not existed. It's why pathfinder is harder to get people along. It's not [I]that[/I] hard, but it's alot harder to pick up and play, and almost impossible to go in blind with a few optimizing friends and feel as powerful as them. But what about players that want alot of balance and uniqueness in their games above accessibility? Well, why re-invent a wheel catered to these people? It isn't about gatekeeping or kicking people out of 5e, it's about the fact that revamping a system that is already out wouldn't be as lucrative as making a new system where both types of players have something to play. 3.5e didn't disappear from your book collection, you still have their DMG, PHB, and MM. But if you want to find joy in 5e, that's a fair request. It's impossible to please everyone, though. Sometimes, you're just unlucky enough to not be the type of player catered to by the system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you care how about "PC balance"?
Top