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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7739899" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Just because it’s a different process than that which has been followed for designing previous editions doesn’t mean the design itself challenges player expectations regarding the design. People like what they’re familiar with. When you design by popular vote, you end up with a greatest hits mix of previous iterations, which is exactly what 5e is. And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s incredibly popular and with good reason. Just because I prefer more experimental design doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the tried and true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The whole point of using a popular vote is that it finds you what the majority wants without requiring you to establish a consensus. There is no risk in doing what the majority of your fan base says they want and tossing out anything the majority says they don’t want. Risk comes from trying something you don’t already know will be popular. And the small number of new (to D&D) ideas that did make it into the game, like Advantage and Disadvantage, involved no risk to include, because they already performed well in the polls. They were already a sure bet. Had they not been, they wouldn’t have made it in. With Did/Advantage in particular, they specifically said they were “ready to shoot their baby” if it hadn’t polled well.</p><p></p><p>Again, its fine that they played it safe. They ended up with a good product that they knew the majority of their target audience would like. That’s smart business practice, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I would have preferred they broke more ground at the risk of not being as popular, but I don’t fault them for not doing so after the risks they took with 4e ended up not paying off.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You haven’t convinced me that anything about 5e was risky or challenging.</p><p></p><p>Actually, they did take one risk, and that was killing 4e for the amount of time it took them to focus test 5e to their satisfaction. They probably lost a lot of money from that decision that they couldn’t guarantee they’d make back. But that’s not a design risk, that’s a purely business risk. And I’m glad it payed off for them! 5e is a great game, and the competition it’s driving from Paizo is healthy for the industry.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is very, very little that any non-caster class does other than move and attack the majority of the time. There are some other options, but they are infrequently relevant, and more often than not it comes down to a math problem rather than a meaning decision. It’s very easy to figure out the optimal play on any given turn, and I personally find that uninteresting.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have at no point in this conversation attempted to claim otherwise. This entire conversation is about personal preference, and if you are reading any other intent into my posts, I can assure you that it is not mine.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’d phrase it as <em>customizability</em>. The ability to customize depends on amount and granularity of options, yes, but it depends as much of not moreso on number of decision points. If I can choose from a million colors for my car but get no other choices to make, it is far less customizable than if I can choose from only a few colors, but also get to choose from a few body types, a few engine options, a few interior materials, a few sound systems, etc. etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>PF1 Feats are a little hit and miss. Some of them have a pretty big impact on how your character behaves, others have next to none. Feats in 5e generally have very little effect on how the character behaves, at best offering a small statistical bonus and one or two actual new options for what to do on your turn. Better than the average PF1 Feat offers, but you get to choose so few of them that it’s a wash at best.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Most of the Feats they’ve shown so far seem to offer about as many actual new decision pints as your average 5e Feat. Look at Power Attack as compared to Great Weapon Master. Or Charger as compared to Charger.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is little meaningful choice for a non-caster to make on a turn to turn basis. Some, but far less than I would prefer. It is, however, a matter of preference if the available choices are sufficient for your desired level of engagement in combat. You haven’t demonstrated any fallacy in my argument, only that you disagree with me about what constitutes a meaningful decision in combat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7739899, member: 6779196"] Just because it’s a different process than that which has been followed for designing previous editions doesn’t mean the design itself challenges player expectations regarding the design. People like what they’re familiar with. When you design by popular vote, you end up with a greatest hits mix of previous iterations, which is exactly what 5e is. And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s incredibly popular and with good reason. Just because I prefer more experimental design doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the tried and true. The whole point of using a popular vote is that it finds you what the majority wants without requiring you to establish a consensus. There is no risk in doing what the majority of your fan base says they want and tossing out anything the majority says they don’t want. Risk comes from trying something you don’t already know will be popular. And the small number of new (to D&D) ideas that did make it into the game, like Advantage and Disadvantage, involved no risk to include, because they already performed well in the polls. They were already a sure bet. Had they not been, they wouldn’t have made it in. With Did/Advantage in particular, they specifically said they were “ready to shoot their baby” if it hadn’t polled well. Again, its fine that they played it safe. They ended up with a good product that they knew the majority of their target audience would like. That’s smart business practice, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I would have preferred they broke more ground at the risk of not being as popular, but I don’t fault them for not doing so after the risks they took with 4e ended up not paying off. You haven’t convinced me that anything about 5e was risky or challenging. Actually, they did take one risk, and that was killing 4e for the amount of time it took them to focus test 5e to their satisfaction. They probably lost a lot of money from that decision that they couldn’t guarantee they’d make back. But that’s not a design risk, that’s a purely business risk. And I’m glad it payed off for them! 5e is a great game, and the competition it’s driving from Paizo is healthy for the industry. There is very, very little that any non-caster class does other than move and attack the majority of the time. There are some other options, but they are infrequently relevant, and more often than not it comes down to a math problem rather than a meaning decision. It’s very easy to figure out the optimal play on any given turn, and I personally find that uninteresting. I have at no point in this conversation attempted to claim otherwise. This entire conversation is about personal preference, and if you are reading any other intent into my posts, I can assure you that it is not mine. I’d phrase it as [I]customizability[/I]. The ability to customize depends on amount and granularity of options, yes, but it depends as much of not moreso on number of decision points. If I can choose from a million colors for my car but get no other choices to make, it is far less customizable than if I can choose from only a few colors, but also get to choose from a few body types, a few engine options, a few interior materials, a few sound systems, etc. etc. PF1 Feats are a little hit and miss. Some of them have a pretty big impact on how your character behaves, others have next to none. Feats in 5e generally have very little effect on how the character behaves, at best offering a small statistical bonus and one or two actual new options for what to do on your turn. Better than the average PF1 Feat offers, but you get to choose so few of them that it’s a wash at best. Most of the Feats they’ve shown so far seem to offer about as many actual new decision pints as your average 5e Feat. Look at Power Attack as compared to Great Weapon Master. Or Charger as compared to Charger. There is little meaningful choice for a non-caster to make on a turn to turn basis. Some, but far less than I would prefer. It is, however, a matter of preference if the available choices are sufficient for your desired level of engagement in combat. You haven’t demonstrated any fallacy in my argument, only that you disagree with me about what constitutes a meaningful decision in combat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
Top