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
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6982529" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>These two posts remind me of what is - for me - the great paradox of D&D: it is quite a way down the crunchy, non-transprarent end of the RPG spectrum, yet has more casual or non-crunchy players playing it than all other RPGers put together!</p><p></p><p>To elaborate: the person who just wants to play a barbarian, an archer, or whatever, would be just as well-served by a loose descriptor system where there is a single character-sheet entry - say "Greataxe-wielding barbarian" with a number next to it. The intricate D&D subsytems of attack number, damage number etc are irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>But for better or worse D&D doesn't work like this; which is why such a weight falls on the shoulders of the designers to try to ensure that when that sort of player engages the mass of subsystems, the results are broadly what the player was expecting.</p><p></p><p>The non-transparency is another conributor to results here: the game doesn't just come out and say "If you want to play a melee warrior on the open plains, make sure you take Mounted Combat!" It leaves it all for the players to work out - which makes the risks of outcomes that don't match expectations even greater, and hence amps up even more the pressure on the design team.</p><p></p><p>4e tried to defuse some of that pressure by increasing the transparency and hence shifting some of the work back onto players (along the lines of "If you do X, Y and Z your PC will work fine under paramaters A, B and C; you can build something else if you want to, and it might work out fine or even better, but if you're going to take that pathway the onus is on you").</p><p></p><p>But 5e doesn't. The only onus-shifting going on is from the design team onto the GM; but that's potentially quite unreliable for all the well-known reasons, including that asking the GM to make sure that a given player gets what s/he wants out of his/her PC can easily push up against all those intricate sub-systems.</p><p></p><p>Frankly, I think it shows the calibre of the WotC design team that they've been able to publish a mostly functional game, given these ludicrously extreme constraints under which they're designing it!</p><p></p><p>I think a system can go a fair way, actually. Eg you can tone down all the interacting, unexpected-feedback-generating subsystems (an early example is Runequest, or Traveller if you're happy to jump genres; Dungeon World and HeroWars/Quest are more contemporary examples).</p><p></p><p>Or, you can build a system where weaker PCs generate GM resources able to be used against stronger PCs (Marvel Heroic RP aims for this: players whose PCs have smaller dice generate more Doom Pool dice for the GM, who can then use those dice to confront the upper-end PCs).</p><p></p><p>Or, you can set up your instructions to GM and your player resource suites so that differences of mechanical effectiveness between PCs become secondary (Burning Wheel does something like this - in BW, <em>engaging</em> the in-game situation is far more important than <em>succeeding</em>, both in terms of shaping the ongoing fiction and PC development).</p><p></p><p>Or there is the 4e approach: like 5e, damage capabilities are carefully calibrated (in 4e on a single-encounter basis rather than a 6-8 encounter basis); but then clear non-DPR functions are expressly called out and allocated in pretty big, clear chunks, so a player who builds a non-DPR character is clear on what s/he is getting by way of "compensation" for lack of damage-dealing capability. 5e, by dropping this transparency, has made it easier for disparity among PCs to emerge accidentally/organically.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6982529, member: 42582"] These two posts remind me of what is - for me - the great paradox of D&D: it is quite a way down the crunchy, non-transprarent end of the RPG spectrum, yet has more casual or non-crunchy players playing it than all other RPGers put together! To elaborate: the person who just wants to play a barbarian, an archer, or whatever, would be just as well-served by a loose descriptor system where there is a single character-sheet entry - say "Greataxe-wielding barbarian" with a number next to it. The intricate D&D subsytems of attack number, damage number etc are irrelevant. But for better or worse D&D doesn't work like this; which is why such a weight falls on the shoulders of the designers to try to ensure that when that sort of player engages the mass of subsystems, the results are broadly what the player was expecting. The non-transparency is another conributor to results here: the game doesn't just come out and say "If you want to play a melee warrior on the open plains, make sure you take Mounted Combat!" It leaves it all for the players to work out - which makes the risks of outcomes that don't match expectations even greater, and hence amps up even more the pressure on the design team. 4e tried to defuse some of that pressure by increasing the transparency and hence shifting some of the work back onto players (along the lines of "If you do X, Y and Z your PC will work fine under paramaters A, B and C; you can build something else if you want to, and it might work out fine or even better, but if you're going to take that pathway the onus is on you"). But 5e doesn't. The only onus-shifting going on is from the design team onto the GM; but that's potentially quite unreliable for all the well-known reasons, including that asking the GM to make sure that a given player gets what s/he wants out of his/her PC can easily push up against all those intricate sub-systems. Frankly, I think it shows the calibre of the WotC design team that they've been able to publish a mostly functional game, given these ludicrously extreme constraints under which they're designing it! I think a system can go a fair way, actually. Eg you can tone down all the interacting, unexpected-feedback-generating subsystems (an early example is Runequest, or Traveller if you're happy to jump genres; Dungeon World and HeroWars/Quest are more contemporary examples). Or, you can build a system where weaker PCs generate GM resources able to be used against stronger PCs (Marvel Heroic RP aims for this: players whose PCs have smaller dice generate more Doom Pool dice for the GM, who can then use those dice to confront the upper-end PCs). Or, you can set up your instructions to GM and your player resource suites so that differences of mechanical effectiveness between PCs become secondary (Burning Wheel does something like this - in BW, [I]engaging[/I] the in-game situation is far more important than [I]succeeding[/I], both in terms of shaping the ongoing fiction and PC development). Or there is the 4e approach: like 5e, damage capabilities are carefully calibrated (in 4e on a single-encounter basis rather than a 6-8 encounter basis); but then clear non-DPR functions are expressly called out and allocated in pretty big, clear chunks, so a player who builds a non-DPR character is clear on what s/he is getting by way of "compensation" for lack of damage-dealing capability. 5e, by dropping this transparency, has made it easier for disparity among PCs to emerge accidentally/organically. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.
Top