Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Complex Should D&D Be?
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="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5028249" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>The way I see it, there are two schools of thought as regards character creation. I'm going to call them the "prix fixe" and the "a la carte" schools.</p><p></p><p>The "prix fixe" school gives you a set of prefab character concepts. If you want to be a sword-and-board fighter, you pick the Fighter class with the Sword-and-Board specialty, and that's it. Your powers and abilities are dictated from those choices.</p><p></p><p>The "a la carte" school gives you a set of discrete components, and you can mix and match to taste. If you want to be a sword-and-board fighter, you put high stats in Strength and Constitution, pick a set of attack maneuvers suitable for use with a one-handed weapon, plus some shield-oriented defense maneuvers, specialize in the longsword, get proficiency with heavy shields, and so forth.</p><p></p><p>As geeks, we instinctively gravitate toward "a la carte," because it seems to us to offer much greater flexibility and the ability to create highly tailored and customized characters. We're control freaks and "a la carte" appears to offer us control. D&D's evolution up through 3E followed that trend. I used to think that was a good thing. I disliked character classes and wanted to see them go away.</p><p></p><p>Now, however, I'm starting to believe that that view is naive. The reason is simple: Most of the apparent options granted by "a la carte" design contribute little or nothing to the character concept, and serve mainly as a way for experienced players to demonstrate system mastery at the expense of newbies. What's the difference (in 3E) between a fighter with Power Attack and one with Toughness? Concept-wise, very little. The only real difference is that one is a better fighter than the other, because Power Attack is one of the strongest feats a fighter can take, and Toughness is teh suck.</p><p></p><p>So, I think the game should re-focus on making choices serve concept, moving toward a more "prix fixe" model. What does this mean in game terms? It means that you don't generally make multiple choices <em>within a given sphere of activity</em>. If you want to play a sword-and-board fighter, that's the only decision you make about your combat style at chargen. All of your combat abilities follow from that one decision. No combat feats, powers, et cetera - it's all laid out for you from the get-go.</p><p></p><p>BUT, you do get to independently choose other aspects of your character concept. For example, background: You can be a sword-and-board fighter who's a noble, or a free citizen, or a peasant gone adventuring, or a former slave. Likewise, race: Human, elf, dwarf, and so on. The important thing is that <em>none of these choices has a significant impact on your performance as a sword-and-board fighter</em>. Each operates within its own sphere, largely separate from the rest... in WotC-speak, siloing.</p><p></p><p>This would go a long way toward making the game newbie-friendly. It would more or less eliminate the danger of making a "wrong" choice (except insofar as certain classes turn out to be stronger than others). It would also reduce the daunting array of mechanical decisions that the newbie has to make with little or no guidance, while at the same time retaining the ability to make the decisions the newbie <em>wants</em> to make: Are you a fighter or a wizard? Sword-and-board or two-handed weapon? Human or elf? Noble or slave?</p><p></p><p>It would also enable the designers to create much greater complexity and depth <em>in play</em>. Because each class would be designed as an integrated whole, instead of trying to make everything modular, each could be custom-tailored to offer a variety of tactical options.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the problem with this is that it conflicts with WotC's business model, which is based on constantly expanding the menu of "a la carte" items. If players don't have to pick new feats and powers as they level up, then how can you sell them a new book full of feats and powers? WotC would have to develop a new business model before they could make such a change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 5028249, member: 58197"] The way I see it, there are two schools of thought as regards character creation. I'm going to call them the "prix fixe" and the "a la carte" schools. The "prix fixe" school gives you a set of prefab character concepts. If you want to be a sword-and-board fighter, you pick the Fighter class with the Sword-and-Board specialty, and that's it. Your powers and abilities are dictated from those choices. The "a la carte" school gives you a set of discrete components, and you can mix and match to taste. If you want to be a sword-and-board fighter, you put high stats in Strength and Constitution, pick a set of attack maneuvers suitable for use with a one-handed weapon, plus some shield-oriented defense maneuvers, specialize in the longsword, get proficiency with heavy shields, and so forth. As geeks, we instinctively gravitate toward "a la carte," because it seems to us to offer much greater flexibility and the ability to create highly tailored and customized characters. We're control freaks and "a la carte" appears to offer us control. D&D's evolution up through 3E followed that trend. I used to think that was a good thing. I disliked character classes and wanted to see them go away. Now, however, I'm starting to believe that that view is naive. The reason is simple: Most of the apparent options granted by "a la carte" design contribute little or nothing to the character concept, and serve mainly as a way for experienced players to demonstrate system mastery at the expense of newbies. What's the difference (in 3E) between a fighter with Power Attack and one with Toughness? Concept-wise, very little. The only real difference is that one is a better fighter than the other, because Power Attack is one of the strongest feats a fighter can take, and Toughness is teh suck. So, I think the game should re-focus on making choices serve concept, moving toward a more "prix fixe" model. What does this mean in game terms? It means that you don't generally make multiple choices [I]within a given sphere of activity[/I]. If you want to play a sword-and-board fighter, that's the only decision you make about your combat style at chargen. All of your combat abilities follow from that one decision. No combat feats, powers, et cetera - it's all laid out for you from the get-go. BUT, you do get to independently choose other aspects of your character concept. For example, background: You can be a sword-and-board fighter who's a noble, or a free citizen, or a peasant gone adventuring, or a former slave. Likewise, race: Human, elf, dwarf, and so on. The important thing is that [I]none of these choices has a significant impact on your performance as a sword-and-board fighter[/I]. Each operates within its own sphere, largely separate from the rest... in WotC-speak, siloing. This would go a long way toward making the game newbie-friendly. It would more or less eliminate the danger of making a "wrong" choice (except insofar as certain classes turn out to be stronger than others). It would also reduce the daunting array of mechanical decisions that the newbie has to make with little or no guidance, while at the same time retaining the ability to make the decisions the newbie [I]wants[/I] to make: Are you a fighter or a wizard? Sword-and-board or two-handed weapon? Human or elf? Noble or slave? It would also enable the designers to create much greater complexity and depth [I]in play[/I]. Because each class would be designed as an integrated whole, instead of trying to make everything modular, each could be custom-tailored to offer a variety of tactical options. Of course, the problem with this is that it conflicts with WotC's business model, which is based on constantly expanding the menu of "a la carte" items. If players don't have to pick new feats and powers as they level up, then how can you sell them a new book full of feats and powers? WotC would have to develop a new business model before they could make such a change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Complex Should D&D Be?
Top