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
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
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="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7095479" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>I do see a lot of that - new races, new classes, etc. I find that a lot of the home-brew that is showing up holds little interest for me too. Most of the UA stuff hasn't excited me terribly either, although there's lots of stuff I have stolen in part. But for a different group of gamers it's very popular. </p><p></p><p>My 5e PHB Home Rules is 123 pages now. It covers character creation (limitations based on abilities, reworked races that support how they are different in the world, traits, etc., I don't have "build rules" like how to make the best fighter, etc. And I hope that the choices are meaningful, and not always easy to make), reworked classes, feats, equipment, movement, armor (including higher ACs and damage reduction), rules that support the different types of weapons (rapiers aren't great against plate, for example), combat (called shots, tactics based on fighting instead of a grid), magic (to tie it into the world better, and including rules on research learning spells, casting spells you haven't mastered, interrupting spellcasting, etc.), crafting magic items, healing, conditions (particularly in regard to addressing things such as pain, exhaustion etc.), separating short and long rest abilities from resting, along with including rules regarding sleep, or more specifically lack of, being awakened, etc. No initiative in combat, injuries, etc.</p><p></p><p>Also, failure <em>is</em> much more common in my game. For example, our combat system is based on the idea that people wear armor because it offers very good protection. Tactics, based on positioning and endurance among other things, is really important to winning a combat. But monsters are also tougher. Like the giant in Game of Thrones picking somebody up and slamming them into a wall. Hit points are capped at level 8-12 (depending on race) and only Constitution bonuses are added as you gain levels after that. So combats require much more thinking than 5e (which is pretty much hit first and the most frequently). It's bringing it back to the gritty, deadly combat that I remember of AD&D (at least how we played it). Combat is more about survival than just being an obstacle to the treasure and a source of XP. </p><p></p><p>So on the one hand, your chance of surviving is somewhat better, but any other creature wearing armor has the same benefits too. So it's harder to kill your opponents too. One of the things that I like least about 5e is how easy combat is (in most cases you hit at last 40%, but often more like 60% of the time), I like that it's fast, and it can be swingy, but overall the assumption is that the PCs will win, and win fairly quickly. The other thing is the very fast advancement. </p><p></p><p>Advancement is very, very slow as well. And since there are level caps based on ability scores, that can have an impact too. With armor being more effective, even low level characters make a difference. 1st and 2nd level characters are nearly as effective as 8th level characters in combat, since only a +1 proficiency bonus separates them. They have fewer hit points, of course, but the way hit points work in the game it's not as much a hindrance provided they can survive a combat. Armor proficiency is based on background and region. Every able-bodied person in the village is trained in the use of several weapons and armor up to mail armor. </p><p></p><p>Yet, at least to me, and my players, it still feels like 5e. It's feeling a lot like AD&D too (one of my goals), but because almost all of the mechanics are based off of existing 5e mechanics, that's what it feels like, mechanically. The exhaustion track and death saves are used extensively, for example. Combat is quite different in many ways, but also easy to understand. It's very modular, and you start with the basics and add layers as the character improves as they gain levels. </p><p></p><p>This isn't really all that different than what I did in AD&D (which was also very easy to homebrew, although far from consistent which is part of why I was modifying it), 2e helped simplify some things, and it wasn't difficult to move our rules to 3e either. We were happily on the battle mat and lots of modifiers approach that started with 2.5e and continued until 4e. It was virtually impossible to continue with what we had in 4e. It was just too different.</p><p></p><p>5e is much simpler, but with a relatively small number of mechanics (some of which come from 4e, and are very good - mechanics were generally a strong point of 4e). </p><p></p><p>That's why I find D&D as flexible. It is capable of supporting many different play styles, from minor changes or additions, to very significant modifications, all without breaking the system. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it benefit from being the game with the most history and the largest base? Of course. If you're counting variations, pretty much any d20 book released is a variation of D&D. </p><p></p><p>Does that mean other systems aren't variable? No. But, at least based on what I'm seeing in this thread, and also by looking at BW vs DW and other variants, there's a more narrowly defined core. As you've stated several times, the way I play D&D would break the game in BW. I don't think the opposite is true. While attempting to play BW/DW with D&D rules would be difficult. But my understanding is that it grew out of a particular way they played OD&D. In which case it's a also a variant of OD&D. And in reality, the flexibility of D&D also includes OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, all the way to 5e.</p><p></p><p>Even if you stick with only TSR/WotC published material - there is an enormous amount of variations from OD&D and AD&D alone simply by including the alternate rules published in Dragon magazine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7095479, member: 6778044"] I do see a lot of that - new races, new classes, etc. I find that a lot of the home-brew that is showing up holds little interest for me too. Most of the UA stuff hasn't excited me terribly either, although there's lots of stuff I have stolen in part. But for a different group of gamers it's very popular. My 5e PHB Home Rules is 123 pages now. It covers character creation (limitations based on abilities, reworked races that support how they are different in the world, traits, etc., I don't have "build rules" like how to make the best fighter, etc. And I hope that the choices are meaningful, and not always easy to make), reworked classes, feats, equipment, movement, armor (including higher ACs and damage reduction), rules that support the different types of weapons (rapiers aren't great against plate, for example), combat (called shots, tactics based on fighting instead of a grid), magic (to tie it into the world better, and including rules on research learning spells, casting spells you haven't mastered, interrupting spellcasting, etc.), crafting magic items, healing, conditions (particularly in regard to addressing things such as pain, exhaustion etc.), separating short and long rest abilities from resting, along with including rules regarding sleep, or more specifically lack of, being awakened, etc. No initiative in combat, injuries, etc. Also, failure [I]is[/I] much more common in my game. For example, our combat system is based on the idea that people wear armor because it offers very good protection. Tactics, based on positioning and endurance among other things, is really important to winning a combat. But monsters are also tougher. Like the giant in Game of Thrones picking somebody up and slamming them into a wall. Hit points are capped at level 8-12 (depending on race) and only Constitution bonuses are added as you gain levels after that. So combats require much more thinking than 5e (which is pretty much hit first and the most frequently). It's bringing it back to the gritty, deadly combat that I remember of AD&D (at least how we played it). Combat is more about survival than just being an obstacle to the treasure and a source of XP. So on the one hand, your chance of surviving is somewhat better, but any other creature wearing armor has the same benefits too. So it's harder to kill your opponents too. One of the things that I like least about 5e is how easy combat is (in most cases you hit at last 40%, but often more like 60% of the time), I like that it's fast, and it can be swingy, but overall the assumption is that the PCs will win, and win fairly quickly. The other thing is the very fast advancement. Advancement is very, very slow as well. And since there are level caps based on ability scores, that can have an impact too. With armor being more effective, even low level characters make a difference. 1st and 2nd level characters are nearly as effective as 8th level characters in combat, since only a +1 proficiency bonus separates them. They have fewer hit points, of course, but the way hit points work in the game it's not as much a hindrance provided they can survive a combat. Armor proficiency is based on background and region. Every able-bodied person in the village is trained in the use of several weapons and armor up to mail armor. Yet, at least to me, and my players, it still feels like 5e. It's feeling a lot like AD&D too (one of my goals), but because almost all of the mechanics are based off of existing 5e mechanics, that's what it feels like, mechanically. The exhaustion track and death saves are used extensively, for example. Combat is quite different in many ways, but also easy to understand. It's very modular, and you start with the basics and add layers as the character improves as they gain levels. This isn't really all that different than what I did in AD&D (which was also very easy to homebrew, although far from consistent which is part of why I was modifying it), 2e helped simplify some things, and it wasn't difficult to move our rules to 3e either. We were happily on the battle mat and lots of modifiers approach that started with 2.5e and continued until 4e. It was virtually impossible to continue with what we had in 4e. It was just too different. 5e is much simpler, but with a relatively small number of mechanics (some of which come from 4e, and are very good - mechanics were generally a strong point of 4e). That's why I find D&D as flexible. It is capable of supporting many different play styles, from minor changes or additions, to very significant modifications, all without breaking the system. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it benefit from being the game with the most history and the largest base? Of course. If you're counting variations, pretty much any d20 book released is a variation of D&D. Does that mean other systems aren't variable? No. But, at least based on what I'm seeing in this thread, and also by looking at BW vs DW and other variants, there's a more narrowly defined core. As you've stated several times, the way I play D&D would break the game in BW. I don't think the opposite is true. While attempting to play BW/DW with D&D rules would be difficult. But my understanding is that it grew out of a particular way they played OD&D. In which case it's a also a variant of OD&D. And in reality, the flexibility of D&D also includes OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, all the way to 5e. Even if you stick with only TSR/WotC published material - there is an enormous amount of variations from OD&D and AD&D alone simply by including the alternate rules published in Dragon magazine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top