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
Greg Leeds talks about D&D
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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6764297" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>That's not really a fair answer though. I can like how AL is right now just fine, with the current number and type of options. I don't need to "control" it all, because the existing setup is already well within my realm of acceptability. But if you increase the number of options, you increase the risk stuff will enter that I don't like. So it's not a matter of wanting to control everything, it's just a matter of the number of options crossing that threshold from acceptable to unacceptable. The idea that material can only be objectionable if you feel the need to control everything is extremist, and not really a fair way to examine the issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, a DM who won't be DMing until well down the road might have no idea in that moment that an option will or will not fit with what they plan to do - they may not have their plan ready. Inevitably this will eventually be the case, as round-robin DMing is almost never between DMs who have planned years and years in advance.</p><p></p><p>Second, this answer fits in the "you're doing it wrong - you should adapt your methods to meet my goals" series of answers. Any time you find yourself saying "then change, so that I can have my options" you're no longer arguing that it's no skin off my back to simply say no. DMs have been doing round-robin style gaming since D&D was invented without the need to suddenly consult with each other on that level of detail about future plans, and asking those DMs to suddenly change so you can have your options seems pretty unreasonable to me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We had a LOT of PHB review, and still there are problematic things in that book. And you expect splat books - and an increased rate of splat books at that - to be more flawless than the PHB itself? It's inevitable that things will not work quite as planned, and the risk increases the faster the pace of publication and the more options provided. In addition, the emphasis was on "in their campaign". The experts have no idea what each individual campaign is like. An option might work for most campaigns but not a particular one, and as I said you may not know that right away given the nature of DMs not being game design experts and campaigns developing over time and options running into problems over time.</p><p></p><p>Bottom line, it's a legitimate issue for more options. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This fits again into the "You're playing it wrong" category of answers. If you seriously expect all DMs to be so good at assessing future game content for how it will interact with all past and future content in a changing campaign such that they can know up front every time if something will work out well or not - then I'd say you're putting an entirely unreasonable burden on DMs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The more options you have, the more risk of it happening. That's my point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or it's a highly likely reaction to fans who buy those materials who want to see it supported. You're simultaneously arguing WOTC should listen to that same sub-set of fans demanding a greater rate of publications and options, and then ignore those same fans when they demand those options be supported in the future. But really, what we have is basically one example out there (the example people constantly point to) of how these things tend to develop, and you're saying "well they are just doing it wrong". Maybe, or maybe that business plan sort of dictates doing it that way which is why Paizo went down that road and continues to double-down on it. I am betting their market research is pretty strong. It means they alienate those who don't like more and more options, but cater well to those who do and who want them supported. </p><p></p><p>WOTC is going down a different route, obviously.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6764297, member: 2525"] That's not really a fair answer though. I can like how AL is right now just fine, with the current number and type of options. I don't need to "control" it all, because the existing setup is already well within my realm of acceptability. But if you increase the number of options, you increase the risk stuff will enter that I don't like. So it's not a matter of wanting to control everything, it's just a matter of the number of options crossing that threshold from acceptable to unacceptable. The idea that material can only be objectionable if you feel the need to control everything is extremist, and not really a fair way to examine the issue. First, a DM who won't be DMing until well down the road might have no idea in that moment that an option will or will not fit with what they plan to do - they may not have their plan ready. Inevitably this will eventually be the case, as round-robin DMing is almost never between DMs who have planned years and years in advance. Second, this answer fits in the "you're doing it wrong - you should adapt your methods to meet my goals" series of answers. Any time you find yourself saying "then change, so that I can have my options" you're no longer arguing that it's no skin off my back to simply say no. DMs have been doing round-robin style gaming since D&D was invented without the need to suddenly consult with each other on that level of detail about future plans, and asking those DMs to suddenly change so you can have your options seems pretty unreasonable to me. We had a LOT of PHB review, and still there are problematic things in that book. And you expect splat books - and an increased rate of splat books at that - to be more flawless than the PHB itself? It's inevitable that things will not work quite as planned, and the risk increases the faster the pace of publication and the more options provided. In addition, the emphasis was on "in their campaign". The experts have no idea what each individual campaign is like. An option might work for most campaigns but not a particular one, and as I said you may not know that right away given the nature of DMs not being game design experts and campaigns developing over time and options running into problems over time. Bottom line, it's a legitimate issue for more options. This fits again into the "You're playing it wrong" category of answers. If you seriously expect all DMs to be so good at assessing future game content for how it will interact with all past and future content in a changing campaign such that they can know up front every time if something will work out well or not - then I'd say you're putting an entirely unreasonable burden on DMs. The more options you have, the more risk of it happening. That's my point. Or it's a highly likely reaction to fans who buy those materials who want to see it supported. You're simultaneously arguing WOTC should listen to that same sub-set of fans demanding a greater rate of publications and options, and then ignore those same fans when they demand those options be supported in the future. But really, what we have is basically one example out there (the example people constantly point to) of how these things tend to develop, and you're saying "well they are just doing it wrong". Maybe, or maybe that business plan sort of dictates doing it that way which is why Paizo went down that road and continues to double-down on it. I am betting their market research is pretty strong. It means they alienate those who don't like more and more options, but cater well to those who do and who want them supported. WOTC is going down a different route, obviously. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Greg Leeds talks about D&D
Top