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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
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="Stacie GmrGrl" data-source="post: 7758922" data-attributes="member: 86279"><p>I like this. I think Mearls is thinking more in favor of how can D&D be better for the DM with 5e than the more Player facing 3e and 4e because both 3e and 4e do provide a lot more mechanical emphasis and options for Players, which probably did make those games more difficult to DM for. </p><p></p><p>At least on the surface it seems that way. But Mearls is making a lot of personal biases creep in and putting his own beliefs into what D&D is supposed to be, and its definitely in favor of making the game appear to be more narrative focused by how the game presents information, the game's mechanisms, and the whole paradigm of De_emphasizing "Rules" in favor of "Rulings" for different DMs to manage the game as they want.</p><p></p><p>All this is why I personally dislike 5e. As a Player I don't like how so many of my decisions are allowed by the DMs personal perspective on their Rulings and because I don't have Rules to fall back on, this leads me to feel quite often that my personal Narrative Identity only matters if the DM chooses to allow it.</p><p></p><p>Plus, 5e has no game mechanisms to really support Narrative Identity. The way its written it presents a very good illusion of it, but if you read carefully, most of the actual rules are phrased like "When you do an Action you MAY DO... (Insert possible action)." </p><p></p><p>There are no concrete rules in 5e for Players to fall back on. 5e provides no Player Agency, as the game is entirely based on how the DM decides to make their Rulings. </p><p></p><p>As an autistic person, I love this as a DM and I hate it as a Player. All of this is why I love 4e a lot more as a Player. Because in 4e, I can look at my character sheet, see my abilities, and I don't need to ask the DM if I can do something because my abilities gave Me as Player the ability to make real mechanical decisions and See the Results. </p><p></p><p>This in turn would cause a 4e DM to have to be more adaptable, and be able to make decisions based on what the Players chose to do. </p><p></p><p>And yet 4e did provide the DMs full ability to make rulings on everything else not codified by all the rules, just see page 42 in the DMG1. That one page provided a sure fire system to enable DM to come up with a great way of handling more Narrative Agency in the more Narrative focused scenes. </p><p></p><p>The problem was that so many people only saw the presentation of the rules that they never really delved further into the actual design mechanisms of the game. And this makes many of Mearls' suppositions of 4e incorrect. </p><p></p><p>As designed, if you really read the 4e DMG books, they provide the DM an incredible amount of flexibility and narrative tools to adapt and create many narrative opportunities. Way more than 5e's design, which is pretty wishy washy and up do the whims of the DMs own personal biases that can often take away from the Players actual agency to make real narrative decisions. The fact that the 5e DMG can talk about Inspiration for many paragraphs and yet does not provide a real single mechanical system for handing Inspiration out is proof of this.</p><p></p><p>But I am a player who see's rules as narrative support and provides players with more agency and 5e's approach as taking away the players agency to make any kind of real decision making since every action the players can do begins by asking the DM if they can do it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stacie GmrGrl, post: 7758922, member: 86279"] I like this. I think Mearls is thinking more in favor of how can D&D be better for the DM with 5e than the more Player facing 3e and 4e because both 3e and 4e do provide a lot more mechanical emphasis and options for Players, which probably did make those games more difficult to DM for. At least on the surface it seems that way. But Mearls is making a lot of personal biases creep in and putting his own beliefs into what D&D is supposed to be, and its definitely in favor of making the game appear to be more narrative focused by how the game presents information, the game's mechanisms, and the whole paradigm of De_emphasizing "Rules" in favor of "Rulings" for different DMs to manage the game as they want. All this is why I personally dislike 5e. As a Player I don't like how so many of my decisions are allowed by the DMs personal perspective on their Rulings and because I don't have Rules to fall back on, this leads me to feel quite often that my personal Narrative Identity only matters if the DM chooses to allow it. Plus, 5e has no game mechanisms to really support Narrative Identity. The way its written it presents a very good illusion of it, but if you read carefully, most of the actual rules are phrased like "When you do an Action you MAY DO... (Insert possible action)." There are no concrete rules in 5e for Players to fall back on. 5e provides no Player Agency, as the game is entirely based on how the DM decides to make their Rulings. As an autistic person, I love this as a DM and I hate it as a Player. All of this is why I love 4e a lot more as a Player. Because in 4e, I can look at my character sheet, see my abilities, and I don't need to ask the DM if I can do something because my abilities gave Me as Player the ability to make real mechanical decisions and See the Results. This in turn would cause a 4e DM to have to be more adaptable, and be able to make decisions based on what the Players chose to do. And yet 4e did provide the DMs full ability to make rulings on everything else not codified by all the rules, just see page 42 in the DMG1. That one page provided a sure fire system to enable DM to come up with a great way of handling more Narrative Agency in the more Narrative focused scenes. The problem was that so many people only saw the presentation of the rules that they never really delved further into the actual design mechanisms of the game. And this makes many of Mearls' suppositions of 4e incorrect. As designed, if you really read the 4e DMG books, they provide the DM an incredible amount of flexibility and narrative tools to adapt and create many narrative opportunities. Way more than 5e's design, which is pretty wishy washy and up do the whims of the DMs own personal biases that can often take away from the Players actual agency to make real narrative decisions. The fact that the 5e DMG can talk about Inspiration for many paragraphs and yet does not provide a real single mechanical system for handing Inspiration out is proof of this. But I am a player who see's rules as narrative support and provides players with more agency and 5e's approach as taking away the players agency to make any kind of real decision making since every action the players can do begins by asking the DM if they can do it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top