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: 7739914" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>No, the <em>process</em> wasn't tried and true, the <em>design of the game</em> is. The <em>mechanics</em> of d&d 5e break no new ground a challenge no expectations. They are very much a greatest hits mix of D&D. That's one of the edition's major selling points.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because most designers have their own artistic visions and goals.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Funny thing about New Coke, it actually sold better than Coke, Diet Coke, and Pepsi at first. It was a small but vocal group of Coke fans who were so opposed to the idea of changing the formula of coke who eventually managed to sink New Coke by creating a lot of bad publicity for it. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJt9JkqQYeI" target="_blank">Check it out</a></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Advantage and Disadvantage are actually not new. There are several class features in 4th edition that allowed the player to roll twice and take the better result, such as the Avenger's Oath of Emnity was I think the first example of this in D&D. And while it was relatively new to D&D, it's far from a new mechanic. Other game systems had been using dice pool mechanics for decades by the time D&D finally adopted them. Universal proficiency bonus, that's from 4e too, and it was a tiny step from 3e where there were three different BaB progressions a class could have. Subclasses first showed up in AD&D, so I don't know what you're talking about with that one. Bounded Accuracy is <em>kind of</em> new to D&D, but again, it's far from a new idea, and it was a <em>tiny</em> step from +half level to everything in 4e.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The vast majority of the mechanics in 5e had appeared in D&D before. A few were new to D&D, but old ideas in RPG gaming. And none of the new-to-D&D mechanics were particularly innovative. All of them were small steps from ideas that had been around for a long time, and none of them were a risk to include, because they had already proved popular.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because 4e took a <em>lot</em> of risks. It changed <em>significantly</em> from the previous edition and brought a <em>lot</em> of new ideas to the table. Evidently, too much for the majority of the fanbase. 4e didn't fail because it fixed the failings of 3e. It failed because it was too much change for the existing fanbase. It was actually quite popular with new players, but in Tabletop RPGs, existing players are the main way new players are brought into the game, so 4e didn't reach as many new players as it could have due to alienating the existing fanbase too much.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The New Coke analogy doesn't actually help your argument because New Coke wasn't a calculated risk. By all accounts, it was projected to do incredibly well, and its failure was due to a freak happenstance of poor marketing. It could <em>maybe</em> have been predicted based on the extremely negative reactions of a tiny portion of their focus testers, but for the most part, no one could have seen it coming. And if 5e had failed, no one would have seen it coming either. Advantage wasn't a calculated risk. Bounded Accuracy wasn't a calculated risk. All of it was projected to do well with the fan base. As with New Coke, no one in their right minds was predicting 5e failing, least of all Wizards of the Coast.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The lost goodwill was <em>the primary reason</em> they designed 5e by mass polling and focus testing. Because that's a safe design process. They knew they couldn't afford to take risks, so they went with the safest approach possible. It would have been insane not to.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, anything that involves an investment of money involves <em>some</em> degree of risk. Ever heard of common parlance? My point is, 5e prioritized safe design practices and seeking audience goodwill over strong design rationale and creative vision. Which <em><strong><u>again</u></strong></em>, isn't a bad thing. It's just not what I would have preferred.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm open to the idea of being proven wrong, but I haven't been presented with any sound arguments or evidence to the contrary.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It was absolutely a risk. They could have developed 5e entirely in-house in a fraction of the time, and continued selling 4e in the meantime. Instead, they opted to sacrifice practically any sales for the next 2 years in favor of getting player approval at every step of the process. That's a short-term financial risk for what they thought would be a greater long-term gain. Turns out that not only were they right, but they made out far better than they had predicted.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, have you never heard of common parlance? I didn't think I'd have to spell out that I didn't <em>literally</em> mean no non-caster character ever does anything other than move and attack. My point is, there is very little else worth doing the majority of the time.</p><p></p><p>Cunning Action is <em>usually</em> not worth giving up your off-hand attack for, and when it is, it's obvious what the optimal choice is. There are very few <em>meaningful decisions</em> for non-casting characters to make on a turn by turn basis.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A first level wizard has three cantrips and [int mod + 1] prepared 1st level spells to chose from. That's as many as 7 possible "attacks" they could choose from on any given turn, not including a weapon attack, since that's not really a meaningful option, given that it'll be worse than a cantrip. That gets cut down to three when they run out of 1st level spell slots. Compared the Fighter who can attack with a weapon or... Nothing else, they have no other meaningful options for how to use their action. They have one available bonus action the Wizard doesn't have. Whoopdeedoo!</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's primarily a problem with the design of the available options. If you design an encounter for either edition and convert it to the other, the 4e characters will always have more <em>meaningful</em> choices to make on a given turn.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You've still failed to demonstrate this.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not the point of the metaphor. More options for fewer decision points creates less customizablility than more options for fewer decision points.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not a decision point.</p><p></p><p>Not a decision point.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not a decision point.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not a decision point.</p><p></p><p>This feat provides absolutely no meaningful options for the player to choose from.</p><p></p><p></p><p>To me this is a textbook example of a "decide where your bonuses come from" Feat. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm talking about MEANINGFUL DECISION POINTS. Combat is merely the mode of play where characters have the most such decision points most often.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sssssssssspppppppppeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllsssssssssss</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7739914, member: 6779196"] No, the [I]process[/I] wasn't tried and true, the [I]design of the game[/I] is. The [I]mechanics[/I] of d&d 5e break no new ground a challenge no expectations. They are very much a greatest hits mix of D&D. That's one of the edition's major selling points. Because most designers have their own artistic visions and goals. Funny thing about New Coke, it actually sold better than Coke, Diet Coke, and Pepsi at first. It was a small but vocal group of Coke fans who were so opposed to the idea of changing the formula of coke who eventually managed to sink New Coke by creating a lot of bad publicity for it. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJt9JkqQYeI"]Check it out[/URL] Advantage and Disadvantage are actually not new. There are several class features in 4th edition that allowed the player to roll twice and take the better result, such as the Avenger's Oath of Emnity was I think the first example of this in D&D. And while it was relatively new to D&D, it's far from a new mechanic. Other game systems had been using dice pool mechanics for decades by the time D&D finally adopted them. Universal proficiency bonus, that's from 4e too, and it was a tiny step from 3e where there were three different BaB progressions a class could have. Subclasses first showed up in AD&D, so I don't know what you're talking about with that one. Bounded Accuracy is [I]kind of[/I] new to D&D, but again, it's far from a new idea, and it was a [I]tiny[/I] step from +half level to everything in 4e. The vast majority of the mechanics in 5e had appeared in D&D before. A few were new to D&D, but old ideas in RPG gaming. And none of the new-to-D&D mechanics were particularly innovative. All of them were small steps from ideas that had been around for a long time, and none of them were a risk to include, because they had already proved popular. Because 4e took a [I]lot[/I] of risks. It changed [I]significantly[/I] from the previous edition and brought a [I]lot[/I] of new ideas to the table. Evidently, too much for the majority of the fanbase. 4e didn't fail because it fixed the failings of 3e. It failed because it was too much change for the existing fanbase. It was actually quite popular with new players, but in Tabletop RPGs, existing players are the main way new players are brought into the game, so 4e didn't reach as many new players as it could have due to alienating the existing fanbase too much. The New Coke analogy doesn't actually help your argument because New Coke wasn't a calculated risk. By all accounts, it was projected to do incredibly well, and its failure was due to a freak happenstance of poor marketing. It could [I]maybe[/I] have been predicted based on the extremely negative reactions of a tiny portion of their focus testers, but for the most part, no one could have seen it coming. And if 5e had failed, no one would have seen it coming either. Advantage wasn't a calculated risk. Bounded Accuracy wasn't a calculated risk. All of it was projected to do well with the fan base. As with New Coke, no one in their right minds was predicting 5e failing, least of all Wizards of the Coast. The lost goodwill was [I]the primary reason[/I] they designed 5e by mass polling and focus testing. Because that's a safe design process. They knew they couldn't afford to take risks, so they went with the safest approach possible. It would have been insane not to. Yes, anything that involves an investment of money involves [I]some[/I] degree of risk. Ever heard of common parlance? My point is, 5e prioritized safe design practices and seeking audience goodwill over strong design rationale and creative vision. Which [I][B][U]again[/U][/B][/I], isn't a bad thing. It's just not what I would have preferred. I'm open to the idea of being proven wrong, but I haven't been presented with any sound arguments or evidence to the contrary. It was absolutely a risk. They could have developed 5e entirely in-house in a fraction of the time, and continued selling 4e in the meantime. Instead, they opted to sacrifice practically any sales for the next 2 years in favor of getting player approval at every step of the process. That's a short-term financial risk for what they thought would be a greater long-term gain. Turns out that not only were they right, but they made out far better than they had predicted. Again, have you never heard of common parlance? I didn't think I'd have to spell out that I didn't [I]literally[/I] mean no non-caster character ever does anything other than move and attack. My point is, there is very little else worth doing the majority of the time. Cunning Action is [I]usually[/I] not worth giving up your off-hand attack for, and when it is, it's obvious what the optimal choice is. There are very few [I]meaningful decisions[/I] for non-casting characters to make on a turn by turn basis. A first level wizard has three cantrips and [int mod + 1] prepared 1st level spells to chose from. That's as many as 7 possible "attacks" they could choose from on any given turn, not including a weapon attack, since that's not really a meaningful option, given that it'll be worse than a cantrip. That gets cut down to three when they run out of 1st level spell slots. Compared the Fighter who can attack with a weapon or... Nothing else, they have no other meaningful options for how to use their action. They have one available bonus action the Wizard doesn't have. Whoopdeedoo! No, it's primarily a problem with the design of the available options. If you design an encounter for either edition and convert it to the other, the 4e characters will always have more [I]meaningful[/I] choices to make on a given turn. You've still failed to demonstrate this. That's not the point of the metaphor. More options for fewer decision points creates less customizablility than more options for fewer decision points. Not a decision point. Not a decision point. Not a decision point. Not a decision point. This feat provides absolutely no meaningful options for the player to choose from. To me this is a textbook example of a "decide where your bonuses come from" Feat. I'm talking about MEANINGFUL DECISION POINTS. Combat is merely the mode of play where characters have the most such decision points most often. Sssssssssspppppppppeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllsssssssssss [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
Top