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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6339722" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I am being pessimistic, certainly. </p><p></p><p> Honestly, I think that's part of the problem. There are a lot of good reasons to play a system that doesn't 'support' your style in the sense typically used today (and that sense is 'over-reward' or 'penalize other styles' or something), and D&D is beneficiary of a number of them because it is so widely-known.</p><p></p><p>Personally, one of the things I really liked about 3e was the way the rules worked as a fairly consistent set of 'laws of physics' for the world. The way PCs and Monsters could take levels in classes, for instance. It /could/ have gone even further in that direction (and could have been a /lot/ better-balanced while doing it), but there was a lot of fun to be had with it to the degree that it did. Conversely, one of the things I really liked about 4e was the way it /didn't/ do that nearly as much, and instead had rules that were fairly consistent in emulating genre conventions. I haven't found a corresponding virtue in 5e's ruleset, but then I haven't gotten to see the whole thing yet. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> In the 80s I didn't get to play RQII as much as I'd've liked, but I did enjoy it. I also enjoyed D&D. The systems are extremely different - RQ was arguably significantly better in the technical sense at the time -but they were still each playable in a broad range of styles. </p><p></p><p> I suppose you'd have to accept some fuzziness and matters-of-degree around 'wargaming' and 'sim' to see how they'd be compatible with the GM fudging things in favor of plot. One way that was used a lot in D&D, though, was simply not letting the players know it was happening - something for which the DM screen is handy.</p><p></p><p>It's also possible for the campaign to play to one predilection more than the others at time, over its course. So you could have a campaign that includes a few genuine battles that are played out with the dice falling where they may and tactical acumen provided by the player(s) of the character(s) leading troops being critical, a few set-piece battles, some puzzles, traps, moral quandaries, and logistical issues to sort out in detail, some personal interactions, and yet still a broad story arch and dramatically appropriate climax and denouement. That's not a matter of choreographing some almost-impossibly-precise and complex paragon of gamesmanship, either - it can grow quite organically from the players (including DM) each pursuing their enjoyment of the game while allowing others the same privilege. It's when the predilections rise to the levels of prejudice, and letting another player enjoy the game in a different way becomes intolerable that you have the weird sort of acrimony we saw in the edition war, and mere preferences held up as incompatible 'styles' that must be segregated from eachother. </p><p></p><p>That is, I thought that was a recent phenomenon, but the OP quoted article gives an example of someone going there way back in the early years of the hobby.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6339722, member: 996"] I am being pessimistic, certainly. Honestly, I think that's part of the problem. There are a lot of good reasons to play a system that doesn't 'support' your style in the sense typically used today (and that sense is 'over-reward' or 'penalize other styles' or something), and D&D is beneficiary of a number of them because it is so widely-known. Personally, one of the things I really liked about 3e was the way the rules worked as a fairly consistent set of 'laws of physics' for the world. The way PCs and Monsters could take levels in classes, for instance. It /could/ have gone even further in that direction (and could have been a /lot/ better-balanced while doing it), but there was a lot of fun to be had with it to the degree that it did. Conversely, one of the things I really liked about 4e was the way it /didn't/ do that nearly as much, and instead had rules that were fairly consistent in emulating genre conventions. I haven't found a corresponding virtue in 5e's ruleset, but then I haven't gotten to see the whole thing yet. ;) In the 80s I didn't get to play RQII as much as I'd've liked, but I did enjoy it. I also enjoyed D&D. The systems are extremely different - RQ was arguably significantly better in the technical sense at the time -but they were still each playable in a broad range of styles. I suppose you'd have to accept some fuzziness and matters-of-degree around 'wargaming' and 'sim' to see how they'd be compatible with the GM fudging things in favor of plot. One way that was used a lot in D&D, though, was simply not letting the players know it was happening - something for which the DM screen is handy. It's also possible for the campaign to play to one predilection more than the others at time, over its course. So you could have a campaign that includes a few genuine battles that are played out with the dice falling where they may and tactical acumen provided by the player(s) of the character(s) leading troops being critical, a few set-piece battles, some puzzles, traps, moral quandaries, and logistical issues to sort out in detail, some personal interactions, and yet still a broad story arch and dramatically appropriate climax and denouement. That's not a matter of choreographing some almost-impossibly-precise and complex paragon of gamesmanship, either - it can grow quite organically from the players (including DM) each pursuing their enjoyment of the game while allowing others the same privilege. It's when the predilections rise to the levels of prejudice, and letting another player enjoy the game in a different way becomes intolerable that you have the weird sort of acrimony we saw in the edition war, and mere preferences held up as incompatible 'styles' that must be segregated from eachother. That is, I thought that was a recent phenomenon, but the OP quoted article gives an example of someone going there way back in the early years of the hobby. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top