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="Windjammer" data-source="post: 4817266" data-attributes="member: 60075"><p>I loved the way your final question points to a possible divergence, depending on who your ask or in what function (as DM or player) you ask them this question. </p><p></p><p>I fully concur as a GM with your comment on Grognardia,</p><p>but wanted to say how options presented to the GM need not be options presented to the players. At least not initially. James' blog entry also unequivocally speaks about which options to make available to the players to begin with, not which options are "in the game" per se (where "the game" includes what's available to the DM). </p><p></p><p>Good observation on the current Dungeon editorial, which goes to the opposite extreme. But you got to see that remark in the context of 4th edition, which does an admirable job of keeping 95% of all options presented to be in a certain mechanical bandwidth (contrast 3.5). I understand that your main concern - e.g. that of including "fringe" races (such as tieflings) in one's D&D from the start - pinpoints something else than the mechanics breadth of options. But that point, I feel, comes down to players understanding the reasons for a DM to exclude certain things in his campaign, such as Eastern monks (see The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising), to bring a special "feel" to his campaign, as is suggested in the 3.0 DMG . (I think the line got cut in the 3.5 DMG.)</p><p></p><p>So, at the end, the problem isn't that of a ruleset which, on the face of it, presents too many options of players. The problem is players who feel that anything that's in the rulebook ought to be permissible for them. (See again Dorkness Rising, where the player wanting to play a monk against his DM's wishes says "but we're playing 3rd edition, aren't we? I mean, we are playing BY THE RULES or are we not? And monks are... in the PLayer's Handbook!") So it's the problem of players feeling entitled to their material.</p><p></p><p>In a way, the "everything is core" mentality of 4E makes it harder as a DM to fight that entitlement. It's certainly easier when not everything is core to begin with. </p><p></p><p>So in the end, I'd simply avise players and their DMs to sit down for a preparatory meeting before kicking off this campaign or that campaign - for everyone to get an idea of what's in store, and what's not, and for these things to be rationalized to each other. If everyone's on the same page, there's no problem, and the journey of getting there can be completely without hassle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 4817266, member: 60075"] I loved the way your final question points to a possible divergence, depending on who your ask or in what function (as DM or player) you ask them this question. I fully concur as a GM with your comment on Grognardia, but wanted to say how options presented to the GM need not be options presented to the players. At least not initially. James' blog entry also unequivocally speaks about which options to make available to the players to begin with, not which options are "in the game" per se (where "the game" includes what's available to the DM). Good observation on the current Dungeon editorial, which goes to the opposite extreme. But you got to see that remark in the context of 4th edition, which does an admirable job of keeping 95% of all options presented to be in a certain mechanical bandwidth (contrast 3.5). I understand that your main concern - e.g. that of including "fringe" races (such as tieflings) in one's D&D from the start - pinpoints something else than the mechanics breadth of options. But that point, I feel, comes down to players understanding the reasons for a DM to exclude certain things in his campaign, such as Eastern monks (see The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising), to bring a special "feel" to his campaign, as is suggested in the 3.0 DMG . (I think the line got cut in the 3.5 DMG.) So, at the end, the problem isn't that of a ruleset which, on the face of it, presents too many options of players. The problem is players who feel that anything that's in the rulebook ought to be permissible for them. (See again Dorkness Rising, where the player wanting to play a monk against his DM's wishes says "but we're playing 3rd edition, aren't we? I mean, we are playing BY THE RULES or are we not? And monks are... in the PLayer's Handbook!") So it's the problem of players feeling entitled to their material. In a way, the "everything is core" mentality of 4E makes it harder as a DM to fight that entitlement. It's certainly easier when not everything is core to begin with. So in the end, I'd simply avise players and their DMs to sit down for a preparatory meeting before kicking off this campaign or that campaign - for everyone to get an idea of what's in store, and what's not, and for these things to be rationalized to each other. If everyone's on the same page, there's no problem, and the journey of getting there can be completely without hassle. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics small start versus all in
Top