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
*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
*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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)
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="Blue" data-source="post: 7900181" data-attributes="member: 20564"><p>I fear you haven't grasped my argument, if you say I am characterizing everything new as bad or unhelpful. What I say is that once you reach a good amount, other things that get added are likely to either displace either options (by being better) or to be bloat (but not being played), to an extent more than just spreading out what people play (actual additional choices). However you bring up a salient point about nature of the newness and how different categories can vary that's worth discussing.</p><p></p><p>Generally a casting character has more spells known then classes, and uses a variety over the course of an adventure. They are initentionally looking for a variety. So it's not like classes, where a group of five players will likely only have 4-10 classes between, a group of five players between casters and half casters will likely have dozens of spells in use, reaching up to hundreds if you get up the higher tiers. So there's a lot potential to add spells without displacing other spells or adding bloat. Especially as there are large categories of empty area that have nothing. Look at how SCAG added melee cantrips, something new. That's a great add.</p><p></p><p>But if a source went and made 20 variations of Fireball, all 3rd level, Fire damage with the same radius, but they all did less damage - that wouldn't add much variation to the game in practical play. If instead the average damage was all over the place between the variations it still wouldn't add much variation at the table - characters gaining would take the one with the most damage. So even with spells, which are a category that normally adds to the game, bad choices such as spells that are very similar to existing spells but over or under powered don't add variety.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When you have Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling as your classes, and five players, there's not just room for additional variation, there's a need for it. Compare to 4e, where you have 22 from just PHB1, PHB2 and PHB3, plus the various other books, and then the Essentials versions of the classes. You've reached a point where with a five person group doing a few campaigns over the lifetime of the edition, you still will have some unplayed.</p><p></p><p>I assume you'll agree that when the PHB1 was the only 4e PHB out, the classes in there got more play in any particular party than later when all of the various classes were out. My point is that it is not just dilution, where 8 classes get 1/8th of the play and 22 classes would get 1/22nd of the pay, but to a degree replacement. If some of those 22 classes were in 10% of parties, and some were only in 1% or 0.1% of parties, you've had options that were either introduced as bloat, or were an earlier class that has since been superseded.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>op·por·tu·ni·ty cost</p><p><em>noun</em></p><p>Economics</p><p>noun: <strong>opportunity cost</strong>; plural noun: <strong>opportunity costs</strong></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.</li> </ol><p>Your situation is a textbook example of an opportunity cost. One less rogue was played because a ranger was played. Since the cost we are talking about is not one levied against your table, but rather a note about potential bloat, it's perfectly normal your table did not notice paying a cost - it didn't. But in the case of ranger or rogue I think all of the current base classes of 5e are worth including. I do worry about proliferation of subclasses, so examining that at your table may be more rewarding in understanding my point.</p><p></p><p>For example, with the exception of lowkey13, I think the majority would say Paladin was a good addition to the class list and often played. But how many Oath of the Crown Paladins (SCAG) have you seen played? How many Oath of Redemtion paladins have you see at actual (or virtual) tables? Or the flip side - when there were only Totem and Berserker barbarians, we at least saw a few Berserkers. But with the addition of additional options for barbarians in later books, we don't even see those Berserkers (unless they have house rules to bolster them).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7900181, member: 20564"] I fear you haven't grasped my argument, if you say I am characterizing everything new as bad or unhelpful. What I say is that once you reach a good amount, other things that get added are likely to either displace either options (by being better) or to be bloat (but not being played), to an extent more than just spreading out what people play (actual additional choices). However you bring up a salient point about nature of the newness and how different categories can vary that's worth discussing. Generally a casting character has more spells known then classes, and uses a variety over the course of an adventure. They are initentionally looking for a variety. So it's not like classes, where a group of five players will likely only have 4-10 classes between, a group of five players between casters and half casters will likely have dozens of spells in use, reaching up to hundreds if you get up the higher tiers. So there's a lot potential to add spells without displacing other spells or adding bloat. Especially as there are large categories of empty area that have nothing. Look at how SCAG added melee cantrips, something new. That's a great add. But if a source went and made 20 variations of Fireball, all 3rd level, Fire damage with the same radius, but they all did less damage - that wouldn't add much variation to the game in practical play. If instead the average damage was all over the place between the variations it still wouldn't add much variation at the table - characters gaining would take the one with the most damage. So even with spells, which are a category that normally adds to the game, bad choices such as spells that are very similar to existing spells but over or under powered don't add variety. When you have Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling as your classes, and five players, there's not just room for additional variation, there's a need for it. Compare to 4e, where you have 22 from just PHB1, PHB2 and PHB3, plus the various other books, and then the Essentials versions of the classes. You've reached a point where with a five person group doing a few campaigns over the lifetime of the edition, you still will have some unplayed. I assume you'll agree that when the PHB1 was the only 4e PHB out, the classes in there got more play in any particular party than later when all of the various classes were out. My point is that it is not just dilution, where 8 classes get 1/8th of the play and 22 classes would get 1/22nd of the pay, but to a degree replacement. If some of those 22 classes were in 10% of parties, and some were only in 1% or 0.1% of parties, you've had options that were either introduced as bloat, or were an earlier class that has since been superseded. op·por·tu·ni·ty cost [I]noun[/I] Economics noun: [B]opportunity cost[/B]; plural noun: [B]opportunity costs[/B] [LIST=1] [*]the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. [/LIST] Your situation is a textbook example of an opportunity cost. One less rogue was played because a ranger was played. Since the cost we are talking about is not one levied against your table, but rather a note about potential bloat, it's perfectly normal your table did not notice paying a cost - it didn't. But in the case of ranger or rogue I think all of the current base classes of 5e are worth including. I do worry about proliferation of subclasses, so examining that at your table may be more rewarding in understanding my point. For example, with the exception of lowkey13, I think the majority would say Paladin was a good addition to the class list and often played. But how many Oath of the Crown Paladins (SCAG) have you seen played? How many Oath of Redemtion paladins have you see at actual (or virtual) tables? Or the flip side - when there were only Totem and Berserker barbarians, we at least saw a few Berserkers. But with the addition of additional options for barbarians in later books, we don't even see those Berserkers (unless they have house rules to bolster them). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)
Top