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="mlund" data-source="post: 6051852" data-attributes="member: 50304"><p>Politeness is not permitting vigorous or passionate criticism of ideas, systems, and arguments spill over into attacks and poor treatment of <strong>people</strong>.</p><p></p><p>It's not coddling bad ideas by holding back criticism. That's just terrible post-modern conflict-avoidance behavior that stifles debate.</p><p></p><p>I'm pretty sure excessive meta-discussion is off-topic and against forum rules as well, so let's curb it. If you think I've broken rules, report me to a moderator. If you personally want me to do something, PM me. If I see any more of this passive aggressive, public blame-and-shame meta-arguments about subjective opinions of politeness I'm just going to flag it "off topic" and move on.</p><p></p><p>Thank you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"Constructive conversation," in my opinion, involves breaking down bad ideas along the lines of their flaws.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Every game has it's silliness. I've never found one that didn't. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed playing AD&D for many years. Every edition of D&D has its silly problems. If you found someone that was 100% satisfied with everything in the rules of their edition I'd faint dead away in shock. Move on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I have specific concerns as to why it wouldn't be balanced as it stood. I've seen examples of bad attempts to balance this process in the past, and I don't see any particularly pressing need to go down that path and struggle with patching the glaring flaw when you could just use a distinct design space and avoid the mechanical problem entirely.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The implication that to be "inclusive" of broad <em>concepts</em> you must be inclusive of specific <em>mechanics</em> <strong>is fallacious.</strong>.</p><p></p><p>The proposal put forward was unbalanced and no suggestions on how to balance it or even acknowledgement that it needed to be compensated for were put forward alongside it. That fails to wow me to say the least.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's a huge difference between conceptual interpretations and mechanical interpretations. Mechanics are fussy things. I hope they are successful in casting a very wide net to fit at least the narrative concepts of the Paladin. I'm sure there are people out there who dream up a Paladin with all sorts of mechanics that, in the end, will run afoul of the over-arching goals of play balance and distinct class identities. I hope they don't get their first choice in the matter but the final result is of such quality and vision that they are happy to play regardless.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's almost as if "inclusiveness" doesn't mean everyone gets to have their way and that some desires / ideas / details are just incompatible. Will wonders never cease? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your argument conflates mechanics and concept an awful lot. Giving a Paladin the Expertise System is a <strong>mechanical</strong> decision, not a concept. The entire article is about how far to extend a <strong>mechanic</strong>. Trying to inject "inclusiveness of concept" into such a discussion is just a mind-boggling non-sequitor.</p><p></p><p>(In fact, one of the most maddening things I've noticed is some people just won't be satisfied even if they can play their exact concept of a character. No, it <strong>must</strong> be a dedicated, stand-alone class with exactly the right class name and everything. No sub-classing, build type, background/specialty combination, or multi-classing will do.) </p><p></p><p>- Marty Lund</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6051852, member: 50304"] Politeness is not permitting vigorous or passionate criticism of ideas, systems, and arguments spill over into attacks and poor treatment of [b]people[/b]. It's not coddling bad ideas by holding back criticism. That's just terrible post-modern conflict-avoidance behavior that stifles debate. I'm pretty sure excessive meta-discussion is off-topic and against forum rules as well, so let's curb it. If you think I've broken rules, report me to a moderator. If you personally want me to do something, PM me. If I see any more of this passive aggressive, public blame-and-shame meta-arguments about subjective opinions of politeness I'm just going to flag it "off topic" and move on. Thank you. "Constructive conversation," in my opinion, involves breaking down bad ideas along the lines of their flaws. Every game has it's silliness. I've never found one that didn't. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed playing AD&D for many years. Every edition of D&D has its silly problems. If you found someone that was 100% satisfied with everything in the rules of their edition I'd faint dead away in shock. Move on. Well, I have specific concerns as to why it wouldn't be balanced as it stood. I've seen examples of bad attempts to balance this process in the past, and I don't see any particularly pressing need to go down that path and struggle with patching the glaring flaw when you could just use a distinct design space and avoid the mechanical problem entirely. The implication that to be "inclusive" of broad [I]concepts[/I] you must be inclusive of specific [I]mechanics[/I] [b]is fallacious.[/b]. The proposal put forward was unbalanced and no suggestions on how to balance it or even acknowledgement that it needed to be compensated for were put forward alongside it. That fails to wow me to say the least. There's a huge difference between conceptual interpretations and mechanical interpretations. Mechanics are fussy things. I hope they are successful in casting a very wide net to fit at least the narrative concepts of the Paladin. I'm sure there are people out there who dream up a Paladin with all sorts of mechanics that, in the end, will run afoul of the over-arching goals of play balance and distinct class identities. I hope they don't get their first choice in the matter but the final result is of such quality and vision that they are happy to play regardless. It's almost as if "inclusiveness" doesn't mean everyone gets to have their way and that some desires / ideas / details are just incompatible. Will wonders never cease? ;) Your argument conflates mechanics and concept an awful lot. Giving a Paladin the Expertise System is a [b]mechanical[/b] decision, not a concept. The entire article is about how far to extend a [b]mechanic[/b]. Trying to inject "inclusiveness of concept" into such a discussion is just a mind-boggling non-sequitor. (In fact, one of the most maddening things I've noticed is some people just won't be satisfied even if they can play their exact concept of a character. No, it [B]must[/B] be a dedicated, stand-alone class with exactly the right class name and everything. No sub-classing, build type, background/specialty combination, or multi-classing will do.) - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Expertise Dice
Top