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
Expertise Dice
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="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6051789" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>I asked you to be nice and tone back the rhetoric in the last post, though I did so indirectly.</p><p> </p><p>I'm now asking you directly: Please dial back the rhetoric and post with at least a modicum of politeness. Please employ some simple respect for others ideas, and try to carry on a constructive conversation rather than <em>attacking</em> any idea that doesn't fit your preferences.</p><p> </p><p>For example: "Silliness" used to describe AD&D is impolite. There are still many fans of AD&D that find it, and all add-ons to it, to be their game of choice. Their game is not "Silliness", just as yours isn't. Many of those AD&D fans do currently post here at ENWorld, and WotC very much wants to draw them into D&D Next also. Please don't marginalize someone else's game just because you don't like it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I do believe it can be done in a balanced manner. However, I'm not a professional game designer, and near as I can tell neither are you. However, in the article WotC just posted on this, it clearly states that WotC is addressing such concerns and is working to keep the classes balanced even with the inclusion of expertise dice for all martial based classes. They mention (without going into too many specifics, as the concepts and mechanics are still being worked out) that there will likely be unique uses of expertise dice that only fighters have, and likely maneuvers that fighters will only have (or have unlimited use of).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>My appeal to inclusiveness is hardly fallacious. Inclusiveness is most certainly not a fallacy, and I am not being either deceptive or misleading. And again, I'm asking you to tone back the rhetoric and post politely. </p><p> </p><p>In essence: Yes, I (and you, and every other fan of D&D) should be able to play D&D however I/you/we want. However, that doesn't mean a complete lack of balanced mechanics (as you seem to imply that I desire, and incorrectly so). There are balance concerns for a reason. I however believe that the designers at WotC are able to incorporate the expertise dice mechanic into all classes with martial aspects and still retain balance. I believe this because they are professional game designers, and you and I are not. I also believe that they can incorporate the myriad interpretations of Paladins into the Paladin class...both yours, mine, and every other common view of them. I have faith they can do this as they seem to be properly motivated to do so (specifically, this time around failure is not an option...).</p><p> </p><p>But back to "Inclusiveness": whether one may like it or not, WotC has stated this from the start as their Primary Goal with D&D Next. It's not going to change, it's not going to be dropped, no matter how much people rail against inclusion of anything they don't like. If "inclusiveness" is anathema to one's game preferences, then D&D Next will absolutely not be the game for them.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Again, you are implying a desire on my part that I did not state or imply. Nor has WotC stated an intention to do this either. Creating a position that I don't possess, then attacking that position is a type of informal fallacy and flawed reasoning (specifically, a Straw Man). I believe it's occuring here out of a motivation to block a personally undesired concept, rather than based on a real issue of imbalance.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The argument that the Paladin concept I described earlier is untenable has yet to backed up by clear logic or evidence, and WotC disagrees that balance will be an issue. With WotC's stated goals for D&D Next, the exclusion of a concept (concept...not a mechanic) simply because some people may not like it is not a consideration in this iterations design. D&D Next is going to be a buffet with a vast array of dishes and flavors. Take the ones you want, and leave the others behind...but please stop insisting that the dishes you don't like should be banned from the table.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> </p><p>- Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 6051789, member: 59506"] I asked you to be nice and tone back the rhetoric in the last post, though I did so indirectly. I'm now asking you directly: Please dial back the rhetoric and post with at least a modicum of politeness. Please employ some simple respect for others ideas, and try to carry on a constructive conversation rather than [I]attacking[/I] any idea that doesn't fit your preferences. For example: "Silliness" used to describe AD&D is impolite. There are still many fans of AD&D that find it, and all add-ons to it, to be their game of choice. Their game is not "Silliness", just as yours isn't. Many of those AD&D fans do currently post here at ENWorld, and WotC very much wants to draw them into D&D Next also. Please don't marginalize someone else's game just because you don't like it. I do believe it can be done in a balanced manner. However, I'm not a professional game designer, and near as I can tell neither are you. However, in the article WotC just posted on this, it clearly states that WotC is addressing such concerns and is working to keep the classes balanced even with the inclusion of expertise dice for all martial based classes. They mention (without going into too many specifics, as the concepts and mechanics are still being worked out) that there will likely be unique uses of expertise dice that only fighters have, and likely maneuvers that fighters will only have (or have unlimited use of). My appeal to inclusiveness is hardly fallacious. Inclusiveness is most certainly not a fallacy, and I am not being either deceptive or misleading. And again, I'm asking you to tone back the rhetoric and post politely. In essence: Yes, I (and you, and every other fan of D&D) should be able to play D&D however I/you/we want. However, that doesn't mean a complete lack of balanced mechanics (as you seem to imply that I desire, and incorrectly so). There are balance concerns for a reason. I however believe that the designers at WotC are able to incorporate the expertise dice mechanic into all classes with martial aspects and still retain balance. I believe this because they are professional game designers, and you and I are not. I also believe that they can incorporate the myriad interpretations of Paladins into the Paladin class...both yours, mine, and every other common view of them. I have faith they can do this as they seem to be properly motivated to do so (specifically, this time around failure is not an option...). But back to "Inclusiveness": whether one may like it or not, WotC has stated this from the start as their Primary Goal with D&D Next. It's not going to change, it's not going to be dropped, no matter how much people rail against inclusion of anything they don't like. If "inclusiveness" is anathema to one's game preferences, then D&D Next will absolutely not be the game for them. Again, you are implying a desire on my part that I did not state or imply. Nor has WotC stated an intention to do this either. Creating a position that I don't possess, then attacking that position is a type of informal fallacy and flawed reasoning (specifically, a Straw Man). I believe it's occuring here out of a motivation to block a personally undesired concept, rather than based on a real issue of imbalance. The argument that the Paladin concept I described earlier is untenable has yet to backed up by clear logic or evidence, and WotC disagrees that balance will be an issue. With WotC's stated goals for D&D Next, the exclusion of a concept (concept...not a mechanic) simply because some people may not like it is not a consideration in this iterations design. D&D Next is going to be a buffet with a vast array of dishes and flavors. Take the ones you want, and leave the others behind...but please stop insisting that the dishes you don't like should be banned from the table.:) - Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Expertise Dice
Top