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
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8200576" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>With respect, if someone can’t help but smuggle in their own subjective preferences and is therefore incapable of evaluating an RPG based solely on the execution of its design imperatives, that doesn’t say anything about the game itself. That’s the reviewers problem (and it would be clear bo matter what they were reviewing).</p><p></p><p>I neither like nor play 5e D&D. But it’s abundantly clear what it’s design imperatives were:</p><p></p><p>* Court as much of the lapsed OSR as possible while simultaneously courting as many lapsed 3.x players as possible.</p><p></p><p>* Run an unprecedented “open playtest” with surveys (that push toward a particular design) and a roughly “on-display” (but not transparent) iterative process that alleges to incorporate the data from those (slanted) surveys. This will be a massive advertising and good-faith coup.</p><p></p><p>* Embrace the storytelling zeitgeist of the late 80s and 90s that 2e embraced up through 3.x and the Pathfinder Adventure Path model.</p><p></p><p>* Draft a Basic version of the game that superficially harkens to Basic D&D.</p><p></p><p>* Make the game extremely amenable to GM Force/Illusionism and Adventure Paths so (a) casual players are easily on-boarded by allowing them to participate passively in a meta plot and (b) more active players can feel like they’re driving play when they’re mostly being railroaded by GMs deft at including non-metaplot sensitive aspects of players’ input into elaborate theatricality and Illusionism.</p><p></p><p>* Make the texts and the game nostalgic and as familiar and as functional at Hexcrawling and Sandboxing as Expert/RC/AD&D.</p><p></p><p>* Reign in spellcasters from their 3.x zenith and throttle up Fighters from their 3.x nadir.</p><p></p><p>* Embrace the DIY and Heterogeneity spirits of yore by advertising those principles while intentionally neither fastening down nor deeply encoding a significant swathe of the ruleset. </p><p></p><p>++++++++</p><p></p><p>I mean. It’s trivial to conclude that the entire iterative, advertising, and finished product of D&D 5e overwhelmingly did what it set out to do.</p><p></p><p>As a cultural phenomenon it’s brilliantly conceived and objectively successful.</p><p></p><p>As a game it’s objectively successful.</p><p></p><p>This is coming from someone who doesn’t like the game holistically at all and who likes only a few aspects of its constituent parts (I spoke about those during the playtest phase and I feel the same way today).</p><p></p><p>The exact same thing can be done for Blades in the Dark (but I won’t do because I’m already long on word count) whether one likes the design imperatives and finished product or not!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8200576, member: 6696971"] With respect, if someone can’t help but smuggle in their own subjective preferences and is therefore incapable of evaluating an RPG based solely on the execution of its design imperatives, that doesn’t say anything about the game itself. That’s the reviewers problem (and it would be clear bo matter what they were reviewing). I neither like nor play 5e D&D. But it’s abundantly clear what it’s design imperatives were: * Court as much of the lapsed OSR as possible while simultaneously courting as many lapsed 3.x players as possible. * Run an unprecedented “open playtest” with surveys (that push toward a particular design) and a roughly “on-display” (but not transparent) iterative process that alleges to incorporate the data from those (slanted) surveys. This will be a massive advertising and good-faith coup. * Embrace the storytelling zeitgeist of the late 80s and 90s that 2e embraced up through 3.x and the Pathfinder Adventure Path model. * Draft a Basic version of the game that superficially harkens to Basic D&D. * Make the game extremely amenable to GM Force/Illusionism and Adventure Paths so (a) casual players are easily on-boarded by allowing them to participate passively in a meta plot and (b) more active players can feel like they’re driving play when they’re mostly being railroaded by GMs deft at including non-metaplot sensitive aspects of players’ input into elaborate theatricality and Illusionism. * Make the texts and the game nostalgic and as familiar and as functional at Hexcrawling and Sandboxing as Expert/RC/AD&D. * Reign in spellcasters from their 3.x zenith and throttle up Fighters from their 3.x nadir. * Embrace the DIY and Heterogeneity spirits of yore by advertising those principles while intentionally neither fastening down nor deeply encoding a significant swathe of the ruleset. ++++++++ I mean. It’s trivial to conclude that the entire iterative, advertising, and finished product of D&D 5e overwhelmingly did what it set out to do. As a cultural phenomenon it’s brilliantly conceived and objectively successful. As a game it’s objectively successful. This is coming from someone who doesn’t like the game holistically at all and who likes only a few aspects of its constituent parts (I spoke about those during the playtest phase and I feel the same way today). The exact same thing can be done for Blades in the Dark (but I won’t do because I’m already long on word count) whether one likes the design imperatives and finished product or not! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
Top