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
Dwarves: too good as fighters?
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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6357532" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I've heard people say this sort of thing a lot, and I think it's a real half-truth.</p><p></p><p>My <em>personal</em> experience is that, in-game, if you have a character who is, thematically/flavour-wise "cool", as you put it, but who is in actual practice, ineffective/mediocre/bad-at-what-he-is-supposedly-good-at, then that actually curdles the "flavour"-fun. Nothing like having a PC who is supposedly great at unarmed combat (fr'ex), but who proves, due to the rules, to be a pretty bad combatant (see this in a number of systems). It's disappointment in it's purest form.</p><p></p><p>Similarly with "cool description" on powers and the like - if the flavour for a power is great, but in practice it's pretty worthless or doesn't really do what it says, then that, in my experience, leads directly to disappointment and disillusionment. Further, players tend very much to blame the game/system. They're not stupid. They know that it's not them, or the DM, or the adventure that made this thing suck, they know it's the rules attached to it. I've heard players say that they do not want to play specific systems for reasons that are essentially flavour/mechanics mismatches plenty of times (it's probably one of the most common "Ugh let's not play that!" reasons, after "The rules are too complicated!" - which is admittedly the most common reason by far - in my experience).</p><p></p><p>I've personally experienced it a number of times, especially when I was younger, where I've had an awesome PC concept, <em>seemingly</em> supported by class or setup in the game, only to find, actually, that just doesn't work very well, or worse, that class literally can't do the thing it's described as doing*. This is a problem even if the class is actually very good at something else, because it's not what you signed up for, it's not the fantasy you wanted to live out. Indeed this is one of the big reasons I got interested in actual mechanics and how they function in practice.</p><p></p><p>So flavour absolutely is a significant part of fun - but when flavour and mechanics mis-match, that can actively harm fun more than if there was no or weak flavour (if they align perfectly, that's awesome, of course - some of 5E's classes/subclasses certainly do - but only some - I'd actually say the October playtest <em>generally</em> had better flavour/mechanics alignment).</p><p></p><p>* = Bard in 5E is an example of this - they can't support the party in the way the cool flavour-text describes - simply don't have the abilities for it (they easily <em>could</em> have, with a couple of songs-as-spells, but WotC didn't bother). Rogues were often victims of this in pre-4E editions, where they're often written up as fearsome killers, but actually, even when the stars align, they're only keeping pace with people making far less effort (4E fixed this, 5E looks to be close to 4E rather than previous editions on it). 4E certainly had plenty of problems in this department, though, especially in the awkward PHB1-2 period.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6357532, member: 18"] I've heard people say this sort of thing a lot, and I think it's a real half-truth. My [I]personal[/I] experience is that, in-game, if you have a character who is, thematically/flavour-wise "cool", as you put it, but who is in actual practice, ineffective/mediocre/bad-at-what-he-is-supposedly-good-at, then that actually curdles the "flavour"-fun. Nothing like having a PC who is supposedly great at unarmed combat (fr'ex), but who proves, due to the rules, to be a pretty bad combatant (see this in a number of systems). It's disappointment in it's purest form. Similarly with "cool description" on powers and the like - if the flavour for a power is great, but in practice it's pretty worthless or doesn't really do what it says, then that, in my experience, leads directly to disappointment and disillusionment. Further, players tend very much to blame the game/system. They're not stupid. They know that it's not them, or the DM, or the adventure that made this thing suck, they know it's the rules attached to it. I've heard players say that they do not want to play specific systems for reasons that are essentially flavour/mechanics mismatches plenty of times (it's probably one of the most common "Ugh let's not play that!" reasons, after "The rules are too complicated!" - which is admittedly the most common reason by far - in my experience). I've personally experienced it a number of times, especially when I was younger, where I've had an awesome PC concept, [I]seemingly[/I] supported by class or setup in the game, only to find, actually, that just doesn't work very well, or worse, that class literally can't do the thing it's described as doing*. This is a problem even if the class is actually very good at something else, because it's not what you signed up for, it's not the fantasy you wanted to live out. Indeed this is one of the big reasons I got interested in actual mechanics and how they function in practice. So flavour absolutely is a significant part of fun - but when flavour and mechanics mis-match, that can actively harm fun more than if there was no or weak flavour (if they align perfectly, that's awesome, of course - some of 5E's classes/subclasses certainly do - but only some - I'd actually say the October playtest [I]generally[/I] had better flavour/mechanics alignment). * = Bard in 5E is an example of this - they can't support the party in the way the cool flavour-text describes - simply don't have the abilities for it (they easily [I]could[/I] have, with a couple of songs-as-spells, but WotC didn't bother). Rogues were often victims of this in pre-4E editions, where they're often written up as fearsome killers, but actually, even when the stars align, they're only keeping pace with people making far less effort (4E fixed this, 5E looks to be close to 4E rather than previous editions on it). 4E certainly had plenty of problems in this department, though, especially in the awkward PHB1-2 period. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dwarves: too good as fighters?
Top