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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Augmenting the core
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5635787" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Sure, but your last point is the biggie. You often use examples of kingdom building and ritual use and such, which are a bit 'fuzzy' and might kind of fit in, but even then there are issues. Rituals require skills for instance. If you use them then you have to use skills. If skills are optional for rituals then the rituals all have to be designed in such a way as to work without skills, making skills not worth much. Alternatively each ritual has to specify alternative rules that work with or without skills. Worse, if the skills system is added after the ritual system then the skills system has to go in and modify rituals itself, all material that is worthless to someone not using rituals. Beyond that "Social Combat" CERTAINLY rests on skills (or needs to be basically 2 separate systems) so you have to 'stack' to get it. Given that most every table will want to use SOMETHING that skills are directly relevant for we've basically created a practical requirement that the skills module be used, so it might as well be core. You can repeat this argument with each major subsystem. </p><p></p><p>The problem with a single 'point pool' is that it will have to pit combat options vs non-combat options. We already know where that leads. Those streams really should not cross unless they have to. It might work OK, but I think it will create some funny meta-game issues for players. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally I'm not bothered by that. Let exploration be a narrative type activity and combat be a more gamist kind of activity. In fact that is already largely true with 4e as it is. It may be that some players are going to not like some of those areas of the game that don't match up too well with their style, but players already have diverse interests and I'm not sure that this really creates any new problems. An 'explorer' player has to deal with the fact that there will be combats and a 'slayer' player has to deal with the fact that combat isn't the whole game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5635787, member: 82106"] Sure, but your last point is the biggie. You often use examples of kingdom building and ritual use and such, which are a bit 'fuzzy' and might kind of fit in, but even then there are issues. Rituals require skills for instance. If you use them then you have to use skills. If skills are optional for rituals then the rituals all have to be designed in such a way as to work without skills, making skills not worth much. Alternatively each ritual has to specify alternative rules that work with or without skills. Worse, if the skills system is added after the ritual system then the skills system has to go in and modify rituals itself, all material that is worthless to someone not using rituals. Beyond that "Social Combat" CERTAINLY rests on skills (or needs to be basically 2 separate systems) so you have to 'stack' to get it. Given that most every table will want to use SOMETHING that skills are directly relevant for we've basically created a practical requirement that the skills module be used, so it might as well be core. You can repeat this argument with each major subsystem. The problem with a single 'point pool' is that it will have to pit combat options vs non-combat options. We already know where that leads. Those streams really should not cross unless they have to. It might work OK, but I think it will create some funny meta-game issues for players. Personally I'm not bothered by that. Let exploration be a narrative type activity and combat be a more gamist kind of activity. In fact that is already largely true with 4e as it is. It may be that some players are going to not like some of those areas of the game that don't match up too well with their style, but players already have diverse interests and I'm not sure that this really creates any new problems. An 'explorer' player has to deal with the fact that there will be combats and a 'slayer' player has to deal with the fact that combat isn't the whole game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls: Augmenting the core
Top