Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
D&D Older Editions
Palladium's philosophy for D&D 4e? Pros and cons
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="Chainsaw Mage" data-source="post: 3511707" data-attributes="member: 16679"><p>So this chap on RPGnet went to the Palladium open house, and shared his thoughts about the experience. It prompted a lengthy and fairly positive thread. One post got me thinking about the intricate, crunch-and-balance-heavy philosophy driving D&D 3.5, and made me wonder if what D&D 4e needs is a return to an older style of thought. The post follows:</p><p></p><p>****</p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">After going to the open house, playing in some games and watching others, I honestly and truly think that a major part of the problem that many people have with PB is that they keep looking for the baseline, they official rules, the standard off of which to base things.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">I'm flat out telling you that there isn't one. Ever hear Old Geezer talk about how he and the old gang made up rules and just kept trying <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> until they found something that more or less worked for them? That's Kevin all over. He made a bunch of stuff up, it worked for him because he ran fast and loose, it worked for his players because they had been playing with him for a long time and were fully on board for his play style. They published it, people who have a similar play style like it, those who require exact rules for everything and are not willing to GM on the fly don't like it so much.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Looking for an official standard assumes that there is one, there isn't. Basically it's all house rules, there is little or no 'one true way' or core system, just a home brew Kevin managed to publish and has been slightly tweaking on and off for 25 years now. Some of the tweaks he puts in the books, some he doesn't, but there isn't a ongoing discussion of rules and game balance and how to make the system better, it's just tweaking <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> and saying "maybe this will be cool." Like a shade tree mechanic trying to make his car go faster. I know that drives some people nuts, and I know a lot of people like to think of game designers as calm, careful men who weigh the pros and cons of every rule change before committing them to paper, but it ain't so in many cases, game designers are us, except they manage to make a living at it. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">One of the guys I talked with at the OH said "Palladium games are not so much a system as a giant Rorschach test, what you see in them tells little about the system, but a lot about you." I think he's right.</span></p><p>****</p><p></p><p>Is there something to be said for this "fast and loose and damn the torpedoes" approach to the game? Or is it a case of "been there, done that", and now D&D can never go back that way, especially as it becomes integrated with an online component in D&D 4e?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chainsaw Mage, post: 3511707, member: 16679"] So this chap on RPGnet went to the Palladium open house, and shared his thoughts about the experience. It prompted a lengthy and fairly positive thread. One post got me thinking about the intricate, crunch-and-balance-heavy philosophy driving D&D 3.5, and made me wonder if what D&D 4e needs is a return to an older style of thought. The post follows: **** [FONT=Arial]After going to the open house, playing in some games and watching others, I honestly and truly think that a major part of the problem that many people have with PB is that they keep looking for the baseline, they official rules, the standard off of which to base things. I'm flat out telling you that there isn't one. Ever hear Old Geezer talk about how he and the old gang made up rules and just kept trying :):):):) until they found something that more or less worked for them? That's Kevin all over. He made a bunch of stuff up, it worked for him because he ran fast and loose, it worked for his players because they had been playing with him for a long time and were fully on board for his play style. They published it, people who have a similar play style like it, those who require exact rules for everything and are not willing to GM on the fly don't like it so much. Looking for an official standard assumes that there is one, there isn't. Basically it's all house rules, there is little or no 'one true way' or core system, just a home brew Kevin managed to publish and has been slightly tweaking on and off for 25 years now. Some of the tweaks he puts in the books, some he doesn't, but there isn't a ongoing discussion of rules and game balance and how to make the system better, it's just tweaking :):):):) and saying "maybe this will be cool." Like a shade tree mechanic trying to make his car go faster. I know that drives some people nuts, and I know a lot of people like to think of game designers as calm, careful men who weigh the pros and cons of every rule change before committing them to paper, but it ain't so in many cases, game designers are us, except they manage to make a living at it. One of the guys I talked with at the OH said "Palladium games are not so much a system as a giant Rorschach test, what you see in them tells little about the system, but a lot about you." I think he's right.[/FONT] **** Is there something to be said for this "fast and loose and damn the torpedoes" approach to the game? Or is it a case of "been there, done that", and now D&D can never go back that way, especially as it becomes integrated with an online component in D&D 4e? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
Palladium's philosophy for D&D 4e? Pros and cons
Top