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="Imaro" data-source="post: 7739936" data-attributes="member: 48965"><p>The design of the game wasn't tried and true. As an example outside of TTRPG's many videogames combine gameplay aspects of other successful videogames games but don't succeed... combining past mechanics of disaparate games (including a n edition that didn't in and of itself do well) is a risky design proposition not a guarantee for success. It's not the same as say taking a popular system with an established fanbase and putting a fresh coat of pain on it with a few minor tweaks like Pathfinder 1 did. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But if the formula for success was to give the people what they wanted this shouldn't have been able to happen... that's my point. It doesn't matter how it happened if you're claiming there's no risk involved it just shouldn't have been possible.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>What were these new ideas, and lets hold this to the same standard you seem to be holding 5e to where it can't be an iteration on an idea from a previous edition and it also cannot have appeared in another roleplaying game?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not claiming they predicted 5e would fail... I'm arguing against the claim that no risk was involved...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>With the split state of the fanbase it wasn't a safe design process. At the time of it's design the fanbase was all over the place. Some were playing OSR games, some stuck with 4e... others with Pathfinder and some had abandoned D&D for other rpg's... taking all of those groups and designing a game that satisfied the majority of them, even with the ability to poll the online portion of the community (which for the most part is not representative of the D&D community as a whole) along with a design that has pulled in a multitude of new players was a big risk. Creating a successful whole out of those separate pieces (along with the new mechanics that were introduced) that spoke to their fanbase just as well as their potential market was creative genius. Again it may not speak to you personally but that's neither here nor there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this is where we diverge in our opinion, IMO creating a game that has speaks to all the disparate D&D groups and is able to pull in a significant new player base takes creativity and risk... otherwise someone using the OGL would have done it long before now. It seems to you this was safe, entailed no risk and took no creativity... it was the lowest bar and yet it hadn't been met by any company even when D&D dropped off the scene to create 5e. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep saying this... but...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So hyperbole, got it. I'd say loose it, it makes your argument unclear and doesn't really help support your claims only make them seem silly and overblown.</p><p></p><p>I disagree the rogues I've seen in actual play are trying to avoid getting hit and use Cunning Action extensively... again maybe it's encounter design on your part that you only see move and attack. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet unless the creature is fire resistant... guess what that wizard is going to attack with because it does the most damage?? Meaningful choice remember??</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Will they? You seem to think cantrips all offer the same amount of meaningful choice when in fact they don't...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And we're back to the hyperbole... I'll ignore it this time around.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How haven't these created decision points? </p><p>You now have a better chance to locate traps and secret doors successfully... so you now have the decision to search for these things and succeed in harder circumstances?</p><p>You now have the ability to resist damage from traps... you now have the decision point to risk taking the damage from a trap since you can shrug a portion of it off?</p><p>You now have the ability to better avoid traps... do you risk setting it off since you now have a better chance of avoiding it?</p><p></p><p>See your problem is you see a bonus and don't recognize that with 5e's philosophy of everything falls under checks and it's set DC's that bonuses work as an enabler of new decision points.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, I see... by new options you seem to be talking about "powers". I don't see powers as the only enabler of new decision points so we'll just have to agree to disagree here. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No because if you were anything that made a skill succeed at higher DC's, that enabled you to take risks you wouldn't before and so on would fall under this as they open up meaningful decisions... instead you seem to be specifically talking about powers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I thought you meant meaningful decisions? Again see my cantrip example above... Firebolt 90% of the time is not all that meaningful of a choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 7739936, member: 48965"] The design of the game wasn't tried and true. As an example outside of TTRPG's many videogames combine gameplay aspects of other successful videogames games but don't succeed... combining past mechanics of disaparate games (including a n edition that didn't in and of itself do well) is a risky design proposition not a guarantee for success. It's not the same as say taking a popular system with an established fanbase and putting a fresh coat of pain on it with a few minor tweaks like Pathfinder 1 did. But if the formula for success was to give the people what they wanted this shouldn't have been able to happen... that's my point. It doesn't matter how it happened if you're claiming there's no risk involved it just shouldn't have been possible. What were these new ideas, and lets hold this to the same standard you seem to be holding 5e to where it can't be an iteration on an idea from a previous edition and it also cannot have appeared in another roleplaying game? I'm not claiming they predicted 5e would fail... I'm arguing against the claim that no risk was involved... With the split state of the fanbase it wasn't a safe design process. At the time of it's design the fanbase was all over the place. Some were playing OSR games, some stuck with 4e... others with Pathfinder and some had abandoned D&D for other rpg's... taking all of those groups and designing a game that satisfied the majority of them, even with the ability to poll the online portion of the community (which for the most part is not representative of the D&D community as a whole) along with a design that has pulled in a multitude of new players was a big risk. Creating a successful whole out of those separate pieces (along with the new mechanics that were introduced) that spoke to their fanbase just as well as their potential market was creative genius. Again it may not speak to you personally but that's neither here nor there. And this is where we diverge in our opinion, IMO creating a game that has speaks to all the disparate D&D groups and is able to pull in a significant new player base takes creativity and risk... otherwise someone using the OGL would have done it long before now. It seems to you this was safe, entailed no risk and took no creativity... it was the lowest bar and yet it hadn't been met by any company even when D&D dropped off the scene to create 5e. You keep saying this... but... So hyperbole, got it. I'd say loose it, it makes your argument unclear and doesn't really help support your claims only make them seem silly and overblown. I disagree the rogues I've seen in actual play are trying to avoid getting hit and use Cunning Action extensively... again maybe it's encounter design on your part that you only see move and attack. And yet unless the creature is fire resistant... guess what that wizard is going to attack with because it does the most damage?? Meaningful choice remember?? Will they? You seem to think cantrips all offer the same amount of meaningful choice when in fact they don't... And we're back to the hyperbole... I'll ignore it this time around. How haven't these created decision points? You now have a better chance to locate traps and secret doors successfully... so you now have the decision to search for these things and succeed in harder circumstances? You now have the ability to resist damage from traps... you now have the decision point to risk taking the damage from a trap since you can shrug a portion of it off? You now have the ability to better avoid traps... do you risk setting it off since you now have a better chance of avoiding it? See your problem is you see a bonus and don't recognize that with 5e's philosophy of everything falls under checks and it's set DC's that bonuses work as an enabler of new decision points. Ah, I see... by new options you seem to be talking about "powers". I don't see powers as the only enabler of new decision points so we'll just have to agree to disagree here. No because if you were anything that made a skill succeed at higher DC's, that enabled you to take risks you wouldn't before and so on would fall under this as they open up meaningful decisions... instead you seem to be specifically talking about powers. I thought you meant meaningful decisions? Again see my cantrip example above... Firebolt 90% of the time is not all that meaningful of a choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
Top