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 LIVE! 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
How Mythusmage Would Change D&D for 4th Edition if Wizards Hired Him
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="delericho" data-source="post: 2498386" data-attributes="member: 22424"><p>You might have noticed, but life isn't a game run under the d20 rules <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> .</p><p></p><p>The single most important factor when developing a ruleset for a game should be whether the decisions taken make for a more fun game or not. As a rule, games where the player characters are on a reasonably close par tend to be more fun than games where they are not. (It is possible to run a fun game where one character is far more powerful than the others, but it needs handled carefully. Suggesting that as the default is unlikely to result in careful handling.) Game balance tends to lead to a more fun game for all involved.</p><p></p><p>(Consider this: would you play a game of Monopoly where all the other players started with twice as much money as you? And yet, there's no reason why the starting funds should be the same - they're not in real life.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not. 8th level characters are of far greater ability than 1st level characters. The game already handles the difference you want. However, it is <em>useful</em> for the game to have one measure of ability that indicates rough equivalence of capabilities. It is <em>useful</em> to be able to say, "He's a 4th level character", and have that statement mean something. If nothing else, it allows players to bring in a new character to an existing campaign, be able to ask what level to create his character, and not have to worry about whether that's a 'good' 4th-level, a 'poor' 4th-level, or somewhere in between.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. If Bob the Fighter and Clive the Knight of the Hidden Moon adventure together, and Clive can do everything that Bob can do, and do it better, then Clive will end up doing at least as much as Bob in every situation. The more powerful character will be more involved in the events of the game, simply by virtue of being more powerful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In my experience, it is easier to encourage people to participate when their characters aren't overshadowed by the more powerful characters of other members of the group.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Player 1: I'm taking a level of the Wizard class.</p><p>Player 2: I'm taking a level of the Wizard class. Don't forget my extra Blushing Moon Training. It takes a month.</p><p>DM: Okay. A month passes...</p><p></p><p>If membership of an organisation requires in-game time commitments of a PC, the DM has four choices: skip that in-game time, turn that in-game commitment into an adventure in its own right, force the player to sit out the game while the rest of the group plays through that in-game time, or force the player to run a different PC for the duration of the in-game time.</p><p></p><p>The first option removes any penalty from joining an organisation. In effect, not joining an organisation ceases to be a viable option, which sucks if you were going to play the rootless wanderer type.</p><p></p><p>The second option not only removes the penalty of joining the organisation, but turns the penalty into an advantage.</p><p></p><p>The third option is certainly not going to encourage participation, and is not going to make for a more fun game. Either everyone will join an organisation, or no-one will.</p><p></p><p>The fourth option is the best solution, but it's hardly satisfying. It leads to one (or more) players running backup characters for much of the campaign, waiting while their 'real' characters are ready to play again. These backups are disposable, which is hardly going to result in player involvement in the game - the player doesn't care about the backup character, so isn't going to be concerned when he's placed in mortal danger.</p><p></p><p>The analogy is with magic item creation in the game as it stands now: groups just gloss over this time, and rightly so. It's called downtime, and it's skipped because it just isn't interesting. Balancing characters by relying on the use of downtime is hardly a good idea, IMO.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An effective change in the wrong direction is worse than no change at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="delericho, post: 2498386, member: 22424"] You might have noticed, but life isn't a game run under the d20 rules :) . The single most important factor when developing a ruleset for a game should be whether the decisions taken make for a more fun game or not. As a rule, games where the player characters are on a reasonably close par tend to be more fun than games where they are not. (It is possible to run a fun game where one character is far more powerful than the others, but it needs handled carefully. Suggesting that as the default is unlikely to result in careful handling.) Game balance tends to lead to a more fun game for all involved. (Consider this: would you play a game of Monopoly where all the other players started with twice as much money as you? And yet, there's no reason why the starting funds should be the same - they're not in real life.) It's not. 8th level characters are of far greater ability than 1st level characters. The game already handles the difference you want. However, it is [I]useful[/I] for the game to have one measure of ability that indicates rough equivalence of capabilities. It is [I]useful[/I] to be able to say, "He's a 4th level character", and have that statement mean something. If nothing else, it allows players to bring in a new character to an existing campaign, be able to ask what level to create his character, and not have to worry about whether that's a 'good' 4th-level, a 'poor' 4th-level, or somewhere in between. I disagree. If Bob the Fighter and Clive the Knight of the Hidden Moon adventure together, and Clive can do everything that Bob can do, and do it better, then Clive will end up doing at least as much as Bob in every situation. The more powerful character will be more involved in the events of the game, simply by virtue of being more powerful. In my experience, it is easier to encourage people to participate when their characters aren't overshadowed by the more powerful characters of other members of the group. Player 1: I'm taking a level of the Wizard class. Player 2: I'm taking a level of the Wizard class. Don't forget my extra Blushing Moon Training. It takes a month. DM: Okay. A month passes... If membership of an organisation requires in-game time commitments of a PC, the DM has four choices: skip that in-game time, turn that in-game commitment into an adventure in its own right, force the player to sit out the game while the rest of the group plays through that in-game time, or force the player to run a different PC for the duration of the in-game time. The first option removes any penalty from joining an organisation. In effect, not joining an organisation ceases to be a viable option, which sucks if you were going to play the rootless wanderer type. The second option not only removes the penalty of joining the organisation, but turns the penalty into an advantage. The third option is certainly not going to encourage participation, and is not going to make for a more fun game. Either everyone will join an organisation, or no-one will. The fourth option is the best solution, but it's hardly satisfying. It leads to one (or more) players running backup characters for much of the campaign, waiting while their 'real' characters are ready to play again. These backups are disposable, which is hardly going to result in player involvement in the game - the player doesn't care about the backup character, so isn't going to be concerned when he's placed in mortal danger. The analogy is with magic item creation in the game as it stands now: groups just gloss over this time, and rightly so. It's called downtime, and it's skipped because it just isn't interesting. Balancing characters by relying on the use of downtime is hardly a good idea, IMO. An effective change in the wrong direction is worse than no change at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How Mythusmage Would Change D&D for 4th Edition if Wizards Hired Him
Top