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: 6340368" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>So you've gone back after abandoning it in favor of 'DS mechanics?' </p><p></p><p>Have you come to terms with the fact your definition fits many mechanics from all editions of D&D (it's clear you've taken to applying it to 5, which is unfortunate), or have you further refined that definition? I wouldn't mind hearing what it is atm. </p><p></p><p></p><p> I can't speak for every 4venger, but I never wanted anything more than to carry through with some honest analyses - even objective ones, where possible. </p><p></p><p>I know you didn't much care for the conclusions. It did become very clear in the course of the edition war that not only were there 'playstyles' being manufactured just to legitimize wholly subjective opinions, but that even when playstyles were recognizeable and plausible, the lengths a game had to go to in providing 'support' for them were not so reasonable. Many folks seem to feel their style wasn't 'supported' unless playing in that style was substantially over-rewarded with in-game effectiveness, or unless other styles were actively discouraged in some way (whether by being disfavored mechanically, or just talked down in 'advice' sections). Obviously, that's an attitude that has gotten in the way of 5e's objective to support as wide a range of playstyles as possible. </p><p></p><p> You're not wrong. For one thing, it'd only take a few hundred gamers to constitute several 'tons.' <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, there /are/ very clear patterns. Most reasons given reduce to 'realism' arguments, for instance. For a clear example, consider the coining of 'Dissociative Mechanics,' itself: the Alexandrian objected to martial dailies on the grounds that they were 'dissociative,' yet, by the definition he came up with, they were actually associative, since the PH1 provided a reason for them being 1/day, so, he dismissed the reason given on the grounds of realism and fell back on an alternative that fit the definition. </p><p></p><p>Another clear pattern is in what the net effect of adjusting the game to eliminate their objections would be. Very consistently, the result would be an imbalanced game - either one strongly favoring casters and dis-favoring martial characters, or one offering lavish 'rewards for system mastery,' or, of course, both. </p><p></p><p>There are also clear distinctions between the reasons given by fans of 3.x vs those given by fans of earlier editions (which tend to catch 3.x in the same general blast radius). And, unsurprisingly, the net effect of accommodating those reasons would have been to make the next version of D&D a virtual re-print of the favored edition in question.</p><p></p><p>So it's not hard to conclude from the above that to re-capture those 'tons' of gamers for 5e, all WotC has to do is make sure that 5e is imbalanced in favor of casters, 'rewards system mastery,' is a veritable re-print of both 3.5 and AD&D, /and/ is selectively 'realistic.' As impossible as it sounds, it doesn't look like they've missed the mark by as much as one would expect. Though, of course, there are clear cases - like overnight healing - where they've failed. It'd've made a lot more sense to bring back the WoCLW in some way - that magic items are so optional would have allowed old-schoolers to keep it rare and 3.x fans to 'master' it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6340368, member: 996"] So you've gone back after abandoning it in favor of 'DS mechanics?' Have you come to terms with the fact your definition fits many mechanics from all editions of D&D (it's clear you've taken to applying it to 5, which is unfortunate), or have you further refined that definition? I wouldn't mind hearing what it is atm. I can't speak for every 4venger, but I never wanted anything more than to carry through with some honest analyses - even objective ones, where possible. I know you didn't much care for the conclusions. It did become very clear in the course of the edition war that not only were there 'playstyles' being manufactured just to legitimize wholly subjective opinions, but that even when playstyles were recognizeable and plausible, the lengths a game had to go to in providing 'support' for them were not so reasonable. Many folks seem to feel their style wasn't 'supported' unless playing in that style was substantially over-rewarded with in-game effectiveness, or unless other styles were actively discouraged in some way (whether by being disfavored mechanically, or just talked down in 'advice' sections). Obviously, that's an attitude that has gotten in the way of 5e's objective to support as wide a range of playstyles as possible. You're not wrong. For one thing, it'd only take a few hundred gamers to constitute several 'tons.' ;) Seriously, though, there /are/ very clear patterns. Most reasons given reduce to 'realism' arguments, for instance. For a clear example, consider the coining of 'Dissociative Mechanics,' itself: the Alexandrian objected to martial dailies on the grounds that they were 'dissociative,' yet, by the definition he came up with, they were actually associative, since the PH1 provided a reason for them being 1/day, so, he dismissed the reason given on the grounds of realism and fell back on an alternative that fit the definition. Another clear pattern is in what the net effect of adjusting the game to eliminate their objections would be. Very consistently, the result would be an imbalanced game - either one strongly favoring casters and dis-favoring martial characters, or one offering lavish 'rewards for system mastery,' or, of course, both. There are also clear distinctions between the reasons given by fans of 3.x vs those given by fans of earlier editions (which tend to catch 3.x in the same general blast radius). And, unsurprisingly, the net effect of accommodating those reasons would have been to make the next version of D&D a virtual re-print of the favored edition in question. So it's not hard to conclude from the above that to re-capture those 'tons' of gamers for 5e, all WotC has to do is make sure that 5e is imbalanced in favor of casters, 'rewards system mastery,' is a veritable re-print of both 3.5 and AD&D, /and/ is selectively 'realistic.' As impossible as it sounds, it doesn't look like they've missed the mark by as much as one would expect. Though, of course, there are clear cases - like overnight healing - where they've failed. It'd've made a lot more sense to bring back the WoCLW in some way - that magic items are so optional would have allowed old-schoolers to keep it rare and 3.x fans to 'master' it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top