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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
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="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8514226" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>Just because it was designed a certain way doesn't mean I have to agree with or support that design. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Hmmm. Interesting take, but (other than 4e, which is an outlier as usual) I'm not sure there's too much overall difference between levels in the various editions until you get up to about 10th or so, after which 3e and 5e somewhat separate themselves from 0e-1e-2e. At very low level in particular, which is what we've been discussing, I'm not sure there's much that's really edition-dependent.</p><p></p><p>Far more edition-dependent is the degree of lethality assumed by the design; and here 5e is quite different from anything other than 4e.</p><p></p><p>I tend to vary between a) and b) here, depending on the situation at hand. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Another difference between us is that I don't really do CRPGs at all, not since the gold-box days in 2e.</p><p></p><p>Somewhat the opposite of how I saw it: for me my 1st-level characters in 3e already had more mechanics to them than I wanted to worry about, and it only got worse as they levelled up. The various bonuses and so on weren't a problem, but I was constantly short-changing my warrior PCs because I'd forget about some silly feat or other they had that could make them fight better; I just want to roll the die and tell the DM a number.</p><p></p><p>This is something that's long been a pet peeve of mine. There's casters, and there's fighters. Each does their own thing, and playing a character that does both always sounds to me like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.</p><p></p><p>1e as written can get mechanically as deep as the DM is willing to take it. I've seen a version of the initiative rules that's 14 pages long, for cryin' out loud. But - and thank [your favourite deity] for this - most DMs don't bother with such inanity, and strip it down to somehting more rational.</p><p></p><p>It sounds like your DM did what he could with it, but yes, it's sometimes on the player to think outside the box and more than later editions it can reward being a bit gonzo in one's play. Plaing it conservative can get boring.</p><p></p><p>I guess I see behaving in a paladin-y way to in itself be the doing of a paladin-y thing.</p><p></p><p>If I can hit more often and give out more damage than most of the other classes - in other words generally be the toughest badass in the party - that's the gameplay feel of a Fighter right there. Everything else is largely superfluous.</p><p></p><p>And I say this having spent a very long time at the helm of some rather memorable 1e Fighters.</p><p></p><p>That seems like a much wider separation than I'd give it. They're interlinked, in that the fictional position informs the mechanics and the mechanics in turn inform the fictional position; and some of the biggest debates I've seen here seem to revolve around which of those should take precedence if either. (personally I'd rather prioritize the fiction and let the mechanics try to keep up if they can)</p><p></p><p>I don't know D-of-Pern or Lords of Creation but I'd hazard a guess those systems aren't too concerned with abstracting combat and other physical things that can't be done at the table.</p><p></p><p>That's where D&D (and adjacent) games are good: they try* to abstract the physical in a consistent-within-system manner while (mostly) leaving roleplay free to run. It's this abstracton process that leads to what you're calling gameplay, but to me that process is merely a stand-in for playing the game as a full-ride LARP and a "virtual" for old out-of-shape guys like me who in reality wouldn't last 5 seconds on a medieval battlefield. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>* - to a greater or lesser degree, and with widely-varying levels of success.</p><p></p><p>In my time, unfortunately, I've seen - and had to DM - all three. Fortunately, with my players now I'm pretty sure I can say those days are well behind me.</p><p></p><p>I rarely if ever get anywhere near emotionally attached enough to a character to feel grief or sadness when it dies. Sure I'll play it with emotion when it's alive and active, but when it's gone it's gone.</p><p></p><p>Fair enough. In the (distant) past I've done a bit of stage acting, the sort where you don't always get much choice of role or character, meaning I had to develop at least a modicum of ability to play characters that didn't interest me personally. That said, given that in an RPG I've in theory got control of what I play and how I play it, if a character I'm playing for some reason doesn't interest me I'll find a way to <em>make</em> it interest me; doing so is not hard.</p><p></p><p>Again, fair enough.</p><p></p><p>Sorry 'bout that. I'm speaking from what I've seen at my own table.</p><p></p><p>Agreed; and this can happen whether one starts out with a fully-formed character concept or a blank slate.</p><p></p><p>An example of mine: I started playing a Magic-User once without much clue if any what would make her tick. I knew what culture (faux-Roman) she was from, and her stats, and that was about it. When she was first introduced to the party, on the spur of the moment I made her somewhat haughty and stuck-up, looking down her nose at all these non-Roman barbarians, and ran with it.</p><p></p><p>She's gone on to become my longest-serving character and is still on-and-off active, and between one development and another over the years she's probably got more character, history, and personality than I do. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I suppose that while I also like experiencing the journey* I willingly accept that said journey is possibly (probably?) going to end before its completion.</p><p></p><p>* - I don't call it the hero's journey as I don't play many heroic types. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8514226, member: 29398"] Just because it was designed a certain way doesn't mean I have to agree with or support that design. :) Hmmm. Interesting take, but (other than 4e, which is an outlier as usual) I'm not sure there's too much overall difference between levels in the various editions until you get up to about 10th or so, after which 3e and 5e somewhat separate themselves from 0e-1e-2e. At very low level in particular, which is what we've been discussing, I'm not sure there's much that's really edition-dependent. Far more edition-dependent is the degree of lethality assumed by the design; and here 5e is quite different from anything other than 4e. I tend to vary between a) and b) here, depending on the situation at hand. :) Another difference between us is that I don't really do CRPGs at all, not since the gold-box days in 2e. Somewhat the opposite of how I saw it: for me my 1st-level characters in 3e already had more mechanics to them than I wanted to worry about, and it only got worse as they levelled up. The various bonuses and so on weren't a problem, but I was constantly short-changing my warrior PCs because I'd forget about some silly feat or other they had that could make them fight better; I just want to roll the die and tell the DM a number. This is something that's long been a pet peeve of mine. There's casters, and there's fighters. Each does their own thing, and playing a character that does both always sounds to me like trying to have one's cake and eat it too. 1e as written can get mechanically as deep as the DM is willing to take it. I've seen a version of the initiative rules that's 14 pages long, for cryin' out loud. But - and thank [your favourite deity] for this - most DMs don't bother with such inanity, and strip it down to somehting more rational. It sounds like your DM did what he could with it, but yes, it's sometimes on the player to think outside the box and more than later editions it can reward being a bit gonzo in one's play. Plaing it conservative can get boring. I guess I see behaving in a paladin-y way to in itself be the doing of a paladin-y thing. If I can hit more often and give out more damage than most of the other classes - in other words generally be the toughest badass in the party - that's the gameplay feel of a Fighter right there. Everything else is largely superfluous. And I say this having spent a very long time at the helm of some rather memorable 1e Fighters. That seems like a much wider separation than I'd give it. They're interlinked, in that the fictional position informs the mechanics and the mechanics in turn inform the fictional position; and some of the biggest debates I've seen here seem to revolve around which of those should take precedence if either. (personally I'd rather prioritize the fiction and let the mechanics try to keep up if they can) I don't know D-of-Pern or Lords of Creation but I'd hazard a guess those systems aren't too concerned with abstracting combat and other physical things that can't be done at the table. That's where D&D (and adjacent) games are good: they try* to abstract the physical in a consistent-within-system manner while (mostly) leaving roleplay free to run. It's this abstracton process that leads to what you're calling gameplay, but to me that process is merely a stand-in for playing the game as a full-ride LARP and a "virtual" for old out-of-shape guys like me who in reality wouldn't last 5 seconds on a medieval battlefield. :) * - to a greater or lesser degree, and with widely-varying levels of success. In my time, unfortunately, I've seen - and had to DM - all three. Fortunately, with my players now I'm pretty sure I can say those days are well behind me. I rarely if ever get anywhere near emotionally attached enough to a character to feel grief or sadness when it dies. Sure I'll play it with emotion when it's alive and active, but when it's gone it's gone. Fair enough. In the (distant) past I've done a bit of stage acting, the sort where you don't always get much choice of role or character, meaning I had to develop at least a modicum of ability to play characters that didn't interest me personally. That said, given that in an RPG I've in theory got control of what I play and how I play it, if a character I'm playing for some reason doesn't interest me I'll find a way to [I]make[/I] it interest me; doing so is not hard. Again, fair enough. Sorry 'bout that. I'm speaking from what I've seen at my own table. Agreed; and this can happen whether one starts out with a fully-formed character concept or a blank slate. An example of mine: I started playing a Magic-User once without much clue if any what would make her tick. I knew what culture (faux-Roman) she was from, and her stats, and that was about it. When she was first introduced to the party, on the spur of the moment I made her somewhat haughty and stuck-up, looking down her nose at all these non-Roman barbarians, and ran with it. She's gone on to become my longest-serving character and is still on-and-off active, and between one development and another over the years she's probably got more character, history, and personality than I do. :) I suppose that while I also like experiencing the journey* I willingly accept that said journey is possibly (probably?) going to end before its completion. * - I don't call it the hero's journey as I don't play many heroic types. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Levels 1-4 are "Training Wheels?"
Top