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
*TTRPGs General
Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?
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="Voadam" data-source="post: 4470541" data-attributes="member: 2209"><p>Separate arguments, separate issues.</p><p></p><p>Again, changing wizard mechanics to be simpler won't change someone like S'mon from not wanting lazy or low IQ players to play high IQ studious character roleplay concepts, if his attitude is as I hypothesized it could be based on his statement.</p><p></p><p>His viewpoint could easily be the other way though, based solely on the mechanical complexity of the class. In that case simplifying the classes down to the point where all PCs would be comfortable with the complexity of the mechanics would fix the problem. However adding complexity to simpler classes like fighters would lead such a DM to say D&D is too complex for certain low-IQ or lazy players.</p><p></p><p>It could be a mix of the two viewpoints with him thinking that low IQ/lazy players should not play mechanically complicated or High IQ and studious roleplay concept characters and that a highly complex wizard class is a good match for the high IQ studious wizard roleplay archetype.</p><p></p><p>In any case I don't feel D&D design should be driven by reacting against such individual DM preferences but instead should drive to what will make the best game play for the most players. IMO that means varying complexity among classes to accomodate different player playstyles.</p><p></p><p>However the argument you pose in this post about physical in game described actions versus high IQ and talking character actions I consider a nonissue.</p><p></p><p>I am perfectly fine with having conclusions, decisions, and talking be handled fully by PCs.</p><p></p><p>These things can be handled mechanically through stats and rolls and DM direction, but I am fine with them being governed solely by PCs.</p><p></p><p>A Player need not know magic to play a wizard. I'm fine though with leaving players to make deductions on their own regardless of what their sheet says the character's intelligence is or how high they roll on a d20.</p><p></p><p>It is an arbitrary playstyle preference for which lines you draw between mechanics and player control. Same thing for what level of detail things are handled at.</p><p></p><p>In a LARP I would expect a character who wants to be a tracker to actually have their success at it be commensurate with their tracking skill and the situations they come across.</p><p></p><p>In a game where the player is not physically there to track this must be handled by mechanics.</p><p></p><p>In a game where roleplaying is handled by acting out your character you must be persuasive yourself to be successful at playing a persuasive character.</p><p></p><p>In one where roleplaying is handled mechanically you must either roll well or mechanically be good at persuading.</p><p></p><p>Drawing a line between describing physical things in the nonphysical story and the player's roleplaying out a 1st person interaction or making conclusions or deductions off of the described story seems a natural division to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 4470541, member: 2209"] Separate arguments, separate issues. Again, changing wizard mechanics to be simpler won't change someone like S'mon from not wanting lazy or low IQ players to play high IQ studious character roleplay concepts, if his attitude is as I hypothesized it could be based on his statement. His viewpoint could easily be the other way though, based solely on the mechanical complexity of the class. In that case simplifying the classes down to the point where all PCs would be comfortable with the complexity of the mechanics would fix the problem. However adding complexity to simpler classes like fighters would lead such a DM to say D&D is too complex for certain low-IQ or lazy players. It could be a mix of the two viewpoints with him thinking that low IQ/lazy players should not play mechanically complicated or High IQ and studious roleplay concept characters and that a highly complex wizard class is a good match for the high IQ studious wizard roleplay archetype. In any case I don't feel D&D design should be driven by reacting against such individual DM preferences but instead should drive to what will make the best game play for the most players. IMO that means varying complexity among classes to accomodate different player playstyles. However the argument you pose in this post about physical in game described actions versus high IQ and talking character actions I consider a nonissue. I am perfectly fine with having conclusions, decisions, and talking be handled fully by PCs. These things can be handled mechanically through stats and rolls and DM direction, but I am fine with them being governed solely by PCs. A Player need not know magic to play a wizard. I'm fine though with leaving players to make deductions on their own regardless of what their sheet says the character's intelligence is or how high they roll on a d20. It is an arbitrary playstyle preference for which lines you draw between mechanics and player control. Same thing for what level of detail things are handled at. In a LARP I would expect a character who wants to be a tracker to actually have their success at it be commensurate with their tracking skill and the situations they come across. In a game where the player is not physically there to track this must be handled by mechanics. In a game where roleplaying is handled by acting out your character you must be persuasive yourself to be successful at playing a persuasive character. In one where roleplaying is handled mechanically you must either roll well or mechanically be good at persuading. Drawing a line between describing physical things in the nonphysical story and the player's roleplaying out a 1st person interaction or making conclusions or deductions off of the described story seems a natural division to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Forked Thread: Should complexity vary across classes?
Top