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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7759754" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>It does, although any impact on play is left up to the players and DM. </p><p></p><p>Seems to me to be a case of placing focus on what's important to the game. In D&D, weapons and armor are more central than the finery of one's clothes. It's more important that the fighter is wearing plate armor than that the wizard is wearing a robe, or a scholar's outfit. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Groovy.</p><p></p><p>Would you say that the Prince Valiant game is striving for the same thing that D&D is? I'm not familiar with the game beyond seeing it mentioned from time to time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's cool. For me, the sparser rules for clothing don't seem important enough to be set in stone ahead of play rather than deciding during play the impact if it ever came up. I'm also not against a simpler weapon system if D&D had adopted such. Something like what Dungeon World does would have been fine with me. But I don't mind that they instead went with a list of weapons that each has their own properties and advantages or drawbacks. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sounds like lazy design to me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, I was just giving examples. An additional dice to a pool would be another example. And I agree about static bonuses versus a simpler mechanic. </p><p></p><p>But, my point was that the mechanics are determined ahead of time, so is the issue you have with my comment about the GM not having much influence here more about where the influence is applied? Do you not like the idea that the GM may have to decide a mechanic to apply when a player comes up with an idea? </p><p></p><p>Do you prefer the mechanics always exist prior, so the the GM's job is more clearly defined in that he sets the DC (or at the very least consults the book to determine the DC)? </p><p></p><p>If it's not GM input that you do not like, then what's the issue with the GM deciding what mechanic to apply based on the situation? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know if I agree. I mean, I like the idea of a GM being supported by guidelines...I think that's largely what 5E does. Large portions of the DMG are about exactly that. I think that works well, and it's pretty much exactly why I like 5E. So it seems odd to me that we each view this as desirable, but seem to have opposing views? </p><p></p><p>However, when rules are heavily codified, I think it does limit the players. There are plenty of anecdotes where a new player wows everyone at the table by coming up with some totally unexpected idea. This happens because they don't know the rules. They don't know what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Creating a list of actions to add to an attempt at Influence/Diplomacy/Persuasion is limiting by its nature. It says "here's what you can do to improve your ability to influence". Which implies that things not on that list cannot affect influence. </p><p></p><p>For me, I prefer that such things be left up to me. Since they often rely on the GM using judgment anyway, I don't see the harm in allowing the GM to decide the effect of an action on the check, or on the outcome of the check. </p><p></p><p>As for powergaming and narrative approach, I think that Mearls meant that they focused more on narrative differences from character to character within the same class, rather than an overwhelming number of options in that class in order to differentiate. So instead of worrying about having a fighter subclass for each possible weapon type and so on, they said here are a few mechanical options, and here are others such as background, and bonds and flaws where you can make your fighter different from the other guys. </p><p></p><p>I don't think he's saying the sole way to differentiate is through these narrative means, nor is he describing D&D as a narrative game in the sense commonly used on these boards, but he's saying that the "options" that exist to create a unique character are more narrative based than they've been for D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7759754, member: 6785785"] It does, although any impact on play is left up to the players and DM. Seems to me to be a case of placing focus on what's important to the game. In D&D, weapons and armor are more central than the finery of one's clothes. It's more important that the fighter is wearing plate armor than that the wizard is wearing a robe, or a scholar's outfit. Groovy. Would you say that the Prince Valiant game is striving for the same thing that D&D is? I'm not familiar with the game beyond seeing it mentioned from time to time. That's cool. For me, the sparser rules for clothing don't seem important enough to be set in stone ahead of play rather than deciding during play the impact if it ever came up. I'm also not against a simpler weapon system if D&D had adopted such. Something like what Dungeon World does would have been fine with me. But I don't mind that they instead went with a list of weapons that each has their own properties and advantages or drawbacks. Sounds like lazy design to me. Sure, I was just giving examples. An additional dice to a pool would be another example. And I agree about static bonuses versus a simpler mechanic. But, my point was that the mechanics are determined ahead of time, so is the issue you have with my comment about the GM not having much influence here more about where the influence is applied? Do you not like the idea that the GM may have to decide a mechanic to apply when a player comes up with an idea? Do you prefer the mechanics always exist prior, so the the GM's job is more clearly defined in that he sets the DC (or at the very least consults the book to determine the DC)? If it's not GM input that you do not like, then what's the issue with the GM deciding what mechanic to apply based on the situation? I don't know if I agree. I mean, I like the idea of a GM being supported by guidelines...I think that's largely what 5E does. Large portions of the DMG are about exactly that. I think that works well, and it's pretty much exactly why I like 5E. So it seems odd to me that we each view this as desirable, but seem to have opposing views? However, when rules are heavily codified, I think it does limit the players. There are plenty of anecdotes where a new player wows everyone at the table by coming up with some totally unexpected idea. This happens because they don't know the rules. They don't know what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Creating a list of actions to add to an attempt at Influence/Diplomacy/Persuasion is limiting by its nature. It says "here's what you can do to improve your ability to influence". Which implies that things not on that list cannot affect influence. For me, I prefer that such things be left up to me. Since they often rely on the GM using judgment anyway, I don't see the harm in allowing the GM to decide the effect of an action on the check, or on the outcome of the check. As for powergaming and narrative approach, I think that Mearls meant that they focused more on narrative differences from character to character within the same class, rather than an overwhelming number of options in that class in order to differentiate. So instead of worrying about having a fighter subclass for each possible weapon type and so on, they said here are a few mechanical options, and here are others such as background, and bonds and flaws where you can make your fighter different from the other guys. I don't think he's saying the sole way to differentiate is through these narrative means, nor is he describing D&D as a narrative game in the sense commonly used on these boards, but he's saying that the "options" that exist to create a unique character are more narrative based than they've been for D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top