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
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics small start versus all in
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="JoeGKushner" data-source="post: 4817191" data-attributes="member: 1129"><p>On the ole Grongnardia blog, <a href="http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-not-ad.html" target="_blank">GROGNARDIA: Why Not AD&D?</a> , he notes "Were I to play AD&D, it would be "AD&D minus," which is to say I'd be excising many elements from the published rules and would have to make a point of telling my players what parts of the game I wouldn't be using." and further, "Yet, I can't deny that, from my own perspective anyway, playing a "plus" game is conceptually simpler than a "minus" game, since there's no confusion in reading about class X or spell Y in the Players Handbook, getting all excited about it, and then being told by the referee, "Sorry, I don't use X and Y in my games." One of the reasons I've been so down about supplements is that I feel they often create expectations in the minds of players that put undue pressure on the referee to accommodate them. Certainly the mere existence of a new class, spell, or magic item doesn't put a gun to a referee's head, but I know from experience that many players nevertheless assume that, if it's in an official game book, it ought to be in the game too. I have very reasonable players and yet I still wish to avoid that."</p><p></p><p>I agree with this to a point.</p><p></p><p>I think that the Dummies book is actually a much easier 'core' to swallow. Four classes, four races, and a lot less 'expansionism' that comes with the whole book. </p><p></p><p>Contrast that to the new editorial for Dungeon, "All kinds of D&D books are aimed squarely at players. Just as I urge you to pilfer campaign ideas from other sources, you should also incite your players to pull ideas from core rulebooks, power sourcebooks, and campaign player's guides. Encourage them to explore and use what's out there." and "A campaign world that evolves to include new game elements is much more fun and interesting to players than one that doesn't allow this or that. The trick is to get your players to do some of the heavy lifting, to make them the instigators when it comes to expanding the depth and breadth of the campaign."</p><p></p><p>To me that seems a little like "hey, we gotta sell this stuff so make sure your players can use all of it!" Don't get me wrong, there should be a lot of variety in the game. For example, I'm using 4e but running 3/2/1st ed Forgotten Realms bits. The Dragonborn are allowed and are mercenaries that were summoned to fight in the Orc Gate War in Mulhorandi thousands of years ago and have spread out and are reknown for their martial ways. </p><p></p><p>I found it a little ironic that on a similiar matter when discussing Dragonmarks that the writer of the core, Keith, talks about using "meta" methods of well, assassinating characters that take something that they can take according to the game rules but the GM doesn't really want them to have or that go against the grain of the setting. "The ECG highlights that a PC who develops an out of house mark might be the first member of his race in history to do so, and that the houses could very well decide that extermination is the proper response. So MECHANICALLY marks are available to everyone. But if your campaign is set in Eberron, it's something a player will want to discuss with the DM. It's something that CAN create many interesting stories, if it's what the PC and DM want - but it's certainly within the DM's rights to hold people to the houses (whether with an iron hand or with the "Do what you want, but remember what happened to the Line of Vol... do you really want your entire family to be targeted for extermination to prevent your unnatural mark from spreading?" approach). </p><p>"</p><p></p><p>Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid that in the first place? "Yeah, you can have that..." (GM goes to folder and pulls out 36th level strikers and promptly kills that character.) </p><p></p><p>What's your opinion as a game master and as a player?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JoeGKushner, post: 4817191, member: 1129"] On the ole Grongnardia blog, [url=http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-not-ad.html]GROGNARDIA: Why Not AD&D?[/url] , he notes "Were I to play AD&D, it would be "AD&D minus," which is to say I'd be excising many elements from the published rules and would have to make a point of telling my players what parts of the game I wouldn't be using." and further, "Yet, I can't deny that, from my own perspective anyway, playing a "plus" game is conceptually simpler than a "minus" game, since there's no confusion in reading about class X or spell Y in the Players Handbook, getting all excited about it, and then being told by the referee, "Sorry, I don't use X and Y in my games." One of the reasons I've been so down about supplements is that I feel they often create expectations in the minds of players that put undue pressure on the referee to accommodate them. Certainly the mere existence of a new class, spell, or magic item doesn't put a gun to a referee's head, but I know from experience that many players nevertheless assume that, if it's in an official game book, it ought to be in the game too. I have very reasonable players and yet I still wish to avoid that." I agree with this to a point. I think that the Dummies book is actually a much easier 'core' to swallow. Four classes, four races, and a lot less 'expansionism' that comes with the whole book. Contrast that to the new editorial for Dungeon, "All kinds of D&D books are aimed squarely at players. Just as I urge you to pilfer campaign ideas from other sources, you should also incite your players to pull ideas from core rulebooks, power sourcebooks, and campaign player's guides. Encourage them to explore and use what's out there." and "A campaign world that evolves to include new game elements is much more fun and interesting to players than one that doesn't allow this or that. The trick is to get your players to do some of the heavy lifting, to make them the instigators when it comes to expanding the depth and breadth of the campaign." To me that seems a little like "hey, we gotta sell this stuff so make sure your players can use all of it!" Don't get me wrong, there should be a lot of variety in the game. For example, I'm using 4e but running 3/2/1st ed Forgotten Realms bits. The Dragonborn are allowed and are mercenaries that were summoned to fight in the Orc Gate War in Mulhorandi thousands of years ago and have spread out and are reknown for their martial ways. I found it a little ironic that on a similiar matter when discussing Dragonmarks that the writer of the core, Keith, talks about using "meta" methods of well, assassinating characters that take something that they can take according to the game rules but the GM doesn't really want them to have or that go against the grain of the setting. "The ECG highlights that a PC who develops an out of house mark might be the first member of his race in history to do so, and that the houses could very well decide that extermination is the proper response. So MECHANICALLY marks are available to everyone. But if your campaign is set in Eberron, it's something a player will want to discuss with the DM. It's something that CAN create many interesting stories, if it's what the PC and DM want - but it's certainly within the DM's rights to hold people to the houses (whether with an iron hand or with the "Do what you want, but remember what happened to the Line of Vol... do you really want your entire family to be targeted for extermination to prevent your unnatural mark from spreading?" approach). " Wouldn't it just be easier to avoid that in the first place? "Yeah, you can have that..." (GM goes to folder and pulls out 36th level strikers and promptly kills that character.) What's your opinion as a game master and as a player? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics small start versus all in
Top