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
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7759628" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>A couple of initial things:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) They don't approach combat this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a claymore rather than a dagger - does that give me advantage on killing orcs?"</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) They don't approach prayer and sorcery this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a holy symbol blessed by St Sigobert - will that give me an advantage to repel the vampire?"</p><p></p><p>That tells me something about their expectations - they expect everyone's games to have rather circumscribed fighting, prayer and sorcery (unsurprisingly, much like most editions of D&D since forever!).</p><p></p><p>Those discrete, different, detailed and tigjhly circumscribed systems also are the reason I can't take the idea of 5e as "rules light" seriously. I mean, yes if the comparison class is Hero and Magic Realm - but otherwise not remotely.</p><p></p><p>And this goes back to the issue of equipment lists: the game <em>doesn't</em> just have an equipment list for swords and shields, for wands and bat guano. It has ultra-detailed rules for how these things factor into key activities of gameplay: a sword boosts your damage roll - a mechanical thing - in this precise way; a shield boosts your AC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; a wand boosts your spell DC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; having a pouch of bat guano and other knick-knacks opens up mechanical possibities that otherwise aren't there.</p><p></p><p>The fact that the game takes one design approach to fighting and casting spells (which themselves tend to have a strong focus on their use in fighting) and a different approach to dressing up in fine clothes to impress people tells me something about the game.</p><p></p><p>But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables?</p><p></p><p>In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages.</p><p></p><p>Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem).</p><p></p><p>I think that Moldvay Basic is basically a complete game - it puts itself forward as a dungeoncrawl game, and it has the mechanics to deal with that. I think that 5e is an incomplete game, in that it puts itself forward as covering a range of stuff for which its rules and mechanics are incomplete. Not because they need to be if it's to be kept "light", but because there are other design sensibilities at work - in particular, a preference for GM decision-making as to what happens in most cases that don't involve fighting or casting spells.</p><p></p><p>It's like a feature of classic D&D, which results from the extension of gameplay beyond the dungeoncrawling it was designed for, has been erected into a principle.</p><p></p><p>What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical".</p><p></p><p>The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM.</p><p></p><p>I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e).</p><p></p><p>I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7759628, member: 42582"] A couple of initial things: [indent](1) They don't approach combat this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a claymore rather than a dagger - does that give me advantage on killing orcs?" (2) They don't approach prayer and sorcery this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a holy symbol blessed by St Sigobert - will that give me an advantage to repel the vampire?"[/indent] That tells me something about their expectations - they expect everyone's games to have rather circumscribed fighting, prayer and sorcery (unsurprisingly, much like most editions of D&D since forever!). Those discrete, different, detailed and tigjhly circumscribed systems also are the reason I can't take the idea of 5e as "rules light" seriously. I mean, yes if the comparison class is Hero and Magic Realm - but otherwise not remotely. And this goes back to the issue of equipment lists: the game [I]doesn't[/I] just have an equipment list for swords and shields, for wands and bat guano. It has ultra-detailed rules for how these things factor into key activities of gameplay: a sword boosts your damage roll - a mechanical thing - in this precise way; a shield boosts your AC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; a wand boosts your spell DC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; having a pouch of bat guano and other knick-knacks opens up mechanical possibities that otherwise aren't there. The fact that the game takes one design approach to fighting and casting spells (which themselves tend to have a strong focus on their use in fighting) and a different approach to dressing up in fine clothes to impress people tells me something about the game. But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables? In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages. Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem). I think that Moldvay Basic is basically a complete game - it puts itself forward as a dungeoncrawl game, and it has the mechanics to deal with that. I think that 5e is an incomplete game, in that it puts itself forward as covering a range of stuff for which its rules and mechanics are incomplete. Not because they need to be if it's to be kept "light", but because there are other design sensibilities at work - in particular, a preference for GM decision-making as to what happens in most cases that don't involve fighting or casting spells. It's like a feature of classic D&D, which results from the extension of gameplay beyond the dungeoncrawling it was designed for, has been erected into a principle. What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical". The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM. I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e). I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top