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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gary Gygax Things
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="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7928189" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>It's definitely a different approach to the game, and while I can understand that for a mass market game the current approach possibly has more appeal, I also haven't really found published adventures I'm interesting in running because of it.</p><p></p><p>While they are usually defined as player vs character skill, I think there's a bit more to it. </p><p></p><p>Designing tests of player skill is hard to do for a mass market game, because you won't know what the skills of the players are. But I think the play style back then was also more based on teamwork than it often is today. So new players got to learn the skills in part through playing with more experienced players.</p><p></p><p>One of the biggest differences between D&D and any other game is that it wasn't designed to "play by the rules." By that I don't mean that you were to cheat, or there weren't rules to follow. But nearly every other game has a set of rules that literally define the game. The rules tell you exactly what you can and can't do. </p><p></p><p>D&D, on the other hand, started as a set of rules that loosely defined your capabilities, but otherwise the rules existed primarily as tools to help the DM adjudicate probability of success, with dice used to make the actual determination. Some things, like AC, were defined, but much was left open to the DM to determine the chance of success.</p><p></p><p>For a game designer for a complex game, though, problems could arise with perceived balance. The more complex the game rules got (with more interactions between them), the more that they had to be better defined. In part because that complexity also opened up the possibility for players to master the rules, and thus improve their chances of success or winning. I think part of this was also in response to the fact that the experience varies widely based on the player and, especially, the DM skill. </p><p></p><p>It's much easier to design around the math of the game and character skill, because the designers can define all of that very precisely. MtG and 4e are good examples of how precisely it can be done. A side effect, though, is that it can reduce the options the players/PCs have, and also shift the game closer in approach/feel to a board game. </p><p></p><p>These aren't mutually exclusive, but it is often becoming harder to find players that aren't so focused on the mechanical aspects of "mastering the game." It's super simple to work the math and find "optimal builds" and spend hours planning every aspect of your character before the first session, and discuss the merits of different mechanics online. Learning to DM is also easier, since it's largely about learning the basics for the rules, and then finding tools to design for those mechanical rules. </p><p></p><p>I much prefer what Jim describes than even the "default" approach for 5e. While we loved the whole trajectory through 3.5e at the time, we (or I?) were never fully on board with 4e because it felt too much like a game, and much less like the adjudicated game of make believe we loved. And even though 5e has streamlined and simplified things, we have found that we do even more to strip it back to much closer to AD&D/OD&D days. Mostly by eliminating most of the PC special abilities and focusing on the characters and the players ingenuity because nearly every encounter is different.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, I think for us it's a question of giving the DM full control to build the game around the specific group of players. Not just the adventure, but the game itself. I was super excited about the idea of a modular system as DnD Next was testing, but that didn't come to pass unfortunately. So I champion the game to the masses, but much like Gary's, my home campaign isn't the same as the published game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7928189, member: 6778044"] It's definitely a different approach to the game, and while I can understand that for a mass market game the current approach possibly has more appeal, I also haven't really found published adventures I'm interesting in running because of it. While they are usually defined as player vs character skill, I think there's a bit more to it. Designing tests of player skill is hard to do for a mass market game, because you won't know what the skills of the players are. But I think the play style back then was also more based on teamwork than it often is today. So new players got to learn the skills in part through playing with more experienced players. One of the biggest differences between D&D and any other game is that it wasn't designed to "play by the rules." By that I don't mean that you were to cheat, or there weren't rules to follow. But nearly every other game has a set of rules that literally define the game. The rules tell you exactly what you can and can't do. D&D, on the other hand, started as a set of rules that loosely defined your capabilities, but otherwise the rules existed primarily as tools to help the DM adjudicate probability of success, with dice used to make the actual determination. Some things, like AC, were defined, but much was left open to the DM to determine the chance of success. For a game designer for a complex game, though, problems could arise with perceived balance. The more complex the game rules got (with more interactions between them), the more that they had to be better defined. In part because that complexity also opened up the possibility for players to master the rules, and thus improve their chances of success or winning. I think part of this was also in response to the fact that the experience varies widely based on the player and, especially, the DM skill. It's much easier to design around the math of the game and character skill, because the designers can define all of that very precisely. MtG and 4e are good examples of how precisely it can be done. A side effect, though, is that it can reduce the options the players/PCs have, and also shift the game closer in approach/feel to a board game. These aren't mutually exclusive, but it is often becoming harder to find players that aren't so focused on the mechanical aspects of "mastering the game." It's super simple to work the math and find "optimal builds" and spend hours planning every aspect of your character before the first session, and discuss the merits of different mechanics online. Learning to DM is also easier, since it's largely about learning the basics for the rules, and then finding tools to design for those mechanical rules. I much prefer what Jim describes than even the "default" approach for 5e. While we loved the whole trajectory through 3.5e at the time, we (or I?) were never fully on board with 4e because it felt too much like a game, and much less like the adjudicated game of make believe we loved. And even though 5e has streamlined and simplified things, we have found that we do even more to strip it back to much closer to AD&D/OD&D days. Mostly by eliminating most of the PC special abilities and focusing on the characters and the players ingenuity because nearly every encounter is different. Ultimately, I think for us it's a question of giving the DM full control to build the game around the specific group of players. Not just the adventure, but the game itself. I was super excited about the idea of a modular system as DnD Next was testing, but that didn't come to pass unfortunately. So I champion the game to the masses, but much like Gary's, my home campaign isn't the same as the published game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gary Gygax Things
Top