Mearls: The core of D&D

[pemerton]

When everything is special, nothing is.

What's the evidence in favour of this claim?

I reckon a game in which the only magic items were artefacts wouldn't therefore be boring.

I know that a game in which every PC has a special role or destiny isn't boring.

Heck, all the people that I'm emotionally close to in some fashion are special in some respect or another, and that doesn't undermine my affection for them.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

What's the evidence in favour of this claim?

Its a modified version of a quote from The Incredibles.

"And when everyone's super, no-one will be." ~ Syndrome

Special/interesting is relative to what is considered normal.

I reckon a game in which the only magic items were artefacts wouldn't therefore be boring.

I know that a game in which every PC has a special role or destiny isn't boring.

In both those cases, after the first few times, when that becomes the norm, those artefacts will start to lose their glitz and the fact that the characters have an "epic destiny" will become cliche.

Heck, all the people that I'm emotionally close to in some fashion are special in some respect or another, and that doesn't undermine my affection for them.

Because the norm in that case is the average person on the street. The fact that you are emotional close to them makes them special.

 

[Umbran]

As I understand it, the argument boils down to:

IF there is a limited resource to needed successfully handle encounters, and
IF that resource can only be restored after a given period Y,
THEN scenario design should only include X encounters before Y period of time, where X is the amount of resource available.​

That's rational.

It seems like it, at first glance.

But, if your scenarios never include enough encounters for them to run out of the resource, then the resource never runs out (I know, that's trivial). A resource that never runs out is not really a resource, is it?

It then follows that for the resource to have meaning, scenarios must at least occasionally include enough encounters that they might have to face some without. For good game-play, whether they run out of the resource should be determined by player choices, not the scenario design.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems like it, at first glance.

But, if your scenarios never include enough encounters for them to run out of the resource, then the resource never runs out (I know, that's trivial). A resource that never runs out is not really a resource, is it?

It then follows that for the resource to have meaning, scenarios must at least occasionally include enough encounters that they might have to face some without. For good game-play, whether they run out of the resource should be determined by player choices, not the scenario design.

Sorry, Umbran, but that last line seems pretty wonky to me.....unless you assume that the players are making this choice because doing so is smart. I.e., there is some factor in the scenario design that makes them believe that it is better to tackle the scenario without the resource than to wait until the resource recharges.

Or, as described upthread, mitigation of the key points that lead to the 15-minute adventuring day/auto-recharge:

The key points are (1) something to replenish which makes winning more certain (or, at the very least, mitigates against losing), (2) no consequences for replenishing this thing (which means that all the consequences fall on the "not replenishing" side) and (3) that the first two factors be clear enough that the players understand them.​

Unless, of course, your point is that, for good game-play, players ought to make choices that they know are unwise. And, if that is your point, I reject it utterly.


RC

 

[TerraDave]

Mearls has another one...not to divert from the many exciting discussion here, I have started a new thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Its a modified version of a quote from The Incredibles.

"And when everyone's super, no-one will be." ~ Syndrome

Just as a point of fact, the original was:

"If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from Atlas Shrugged)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just as a point of fact, the original was:

"If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from Atlas Shrugged)

And, even in The Incredibles, it wasn't Syndrome who said it first -- it was Dash. And, by the end of the film, it is okay to be Incredible again.


RC

 

[tuxgeo]

Just as a point of fact, the original was:

"If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from Atlas Shrugged)

And even before that, a parallel sentiment from The Gondoliers by Gilbert and Sullivan: "If everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody." (1889)

There were probably earlier expressions along similar lines. It's a popular observation.

Edit: Found the actual lyrics at Boise State, in a rich-text file:
"When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good catch! And (Aynd?) you're probably right- almost all the big, important meta-ideas keep popping up repeatedly with various sources through history.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's surprising how infrequently Gilbert & Sullivan are referenced on ENWorld

That's because Gilbert & Sullivan were traditionally Warhammer players.