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
D&D Older Editions
Presentation vs design... vs philosophy
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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7934800" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Charisma - it's an innate spellcaster. And yes it was reasonably effective <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There were a couple of options to help, especially once you hit tenth level. But yes you'd tried to avoid that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To me it does. Some people want to blow stuff up and don't want to deal with pages of spell list.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>From my perspective they are the same in a way 3.0 and 3.5 aren't because you could play at the same table at the same time without knowing at all what other people (including the DM) were using. Or even what you were.</p><p></p><p>Some of it I found great because it opened things up to more players (Knight (simple defender fighter), Slayer (simple hitty fighter), Thief (simple rogue), Elementalist (simple blast mage)). I found the Scout and Hunter great because they were actual Rangers rather than the flavourless killer we got in the PHB - and they were also simple to play. And the Berserker (Barbarian who started as a defender and finished the fights as a striker) was great. Not everything was good - and it would have helped if the interesting classes in Heroes of Shadow (Assassin, Vampire, Binder) hadn't all failed to keep up.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>... are you actually serious? Just saying something is "empowerment"? Especially when it's not a very empowering statement.</p><p></p><p>And it's not as if "Rulings not rules" is a particularly empowering mantra anyway. It means neither more nor less than "You're on your own bucko." It does precisely jack squat to empower DMs - it is the literal level zero baseline.</p><p></p><p>Now I'll admit that, as [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] points out, this is about a thousand times <em>less disempowering </em>than the 3.X family's "Here is how you must do things including how your monsters must be put together and the dozens of feats you must use and if you don't your players will be able to tell you you are doing it wrong".</p><p></p><p>But are you literally incapable of imagining anything more empowering than "You're on your own bucko"?</p><p></p><p>4e meanwhile did actual things to empower the DM that went beyond giving the DM all the power (which they have in 4e as well) and leaving them on their own and telling them to make it up as they went along. 4e provided <em>tools. </em>(Of course being 4e it released undercooked and with poor presentation that left people confused).</p><p></p><p>The two obvious tools are the power system and skill challenges. The power system as far as the DM is concerned says "You can do whatever you want - and here is a nice clean way to turn effects with mechanical impact into game language rather than being stuck making it up yourself. You don't have to do it this way but this is a good way to do a lot of things". Meanwhile skill challenges are a scene pacing tool that can be used by absolute newbies to handle things (I speak from experience). Again, the PHB stepped on the presentation. And the monster creation - again it didn't <em>bind </em>the DM - it provided good benchmarks for what would work well but the DM could break it if they wanted to. (And most did because the early 4e design guidelines weren't dangerous enough).</p><p></p><p>But fundamentally:</p><p></p><p>This is how you <em>must </em>do it <<< "Rulings not rules"/"You're on your own bucko" <<< "You have the power and here are some tools to help"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that designing like 5e <em>doesn't </em>bring immesurable popularity. 5e was doing decently for a while on a nice sensible curve, selling more copies but making less money than 4e (subscription services are a license to make money). 5e then shot into the stratosphere with <em>Critical Role</em>. </p><p></p><p>And you not only haven't proven that 4e was the least successful edition of D&D (it was making about six millions a year for WotC a year after the launch of 5e). The least successful edition of D&D was overall <em>2e</em> - not only was it caught (by White Wolf), it literally brought down TSR. You also haven't answered the basic question:</p><p></p><p><strong>What would be the point of making a game like 5e when 5e already exists? </strong></p><p></p><p>The market share of people who like games like 5e is covered by 5e. Why would they buy a different game just like it? The reason Pathfinder sold was that it took a different path to 4e and thus was able to compete by appealing to a specific audience.</p><p></p><p>Making a 5e clone would have just been shooting themselves in the head.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except they <em>didn't</em> fix LFQW. The fundamental problem is still there and is basically unfixable. They just took enough steps to mitigate it that it's nowhere near so toxic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7934800, member: 87792"] Charisma - it's an innate spellcaster. And yes it was reasonably effective :) There were a couple of options to help, especially once you hit tenth level. But yes you'd tried to avoid that. To me it does. Some people want to blow stuff up and don't want to deal with pages of spell list. From my perspective they are the same in a way 3.0 and 3.5 aren't because you could play at the same table at the same time without knowing at all what other people (including the DM) were using. Or even what you were. Some of it I found great because it opened things up to more players (Knight (simple defender fighter), Slayer (simple hitty fighter), Thief (simple rogue), Elementalist (simple blast mage)). I found the Scout and Hunter great because they were actual Rangers rather than the flavourless killer we got in the PHB - and they were also simple to play. And the Berserker (Barbarian who started as a defender and finished the fights as a striker) was great. Not everything was good - and it would have helped if the interesting classes in Heroes of Shadow (Assassin, Vampire, Binder) hadn't all failed to keep up. ... are you actually serious? Just saying something is "empowerment"? Especially when it's not a very empowering statement. And it's not as if "Rulings not rules" is a particularly empowering mantra anyway. It means neither more nor less than "You're on your own bucko." It does precisely jack squat to empower DMs - it is the literal level zero baseline. Now I'll admit that, as [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] points out, this is about a thousand times [I]less disempowering [/I]than the 3.X family's "Here is how you must do things including how your monsters must be put together and the dozens of feats you must use and if you don't your players will be able to tell you you are doing it wrong". But are you literally incapable of imagining anything more empowering than "You're on your own bucko"? 4e meanwhile did actual things to empower the DM that went beyond giving the DM all the power (which they have in 4e as well) and leaving them on their own and telling them to make it up as they went along. 4e provided [I]tools. [/I](Of course being 4e it released undercooked and with poor presentation that left people confused). The two obvious tools are the power system and skill challenges. The power system as far as the DM is concerned says "You can do whatever you want - and here is a nice clean way to turn effects with mechanical impact into game language rather than being stuck making it up yourself. You don't have to do it this way but this is a good way to do a lot of things". Meanwhile skill challenges are a scene pacing tool that can be used by absolute newbies to handle things (I speak from experience). Again, the PHB stepped on the presentation. And the monster creation - again it didn't [I]bind [/I]the DM - it provided good benchmarks for what would work well but the DM could break it if they wanted to. (And most did because the early 4e design guidelines weren't dangerous enough). But fundamentally: This is how you [I]must [/I]do it <<< "Rulings not rules"/"You're on your own bucko" <<< "You have the power and here are some tools to help" Except that designing like 5e [I]doesn't [/I]bring immesurable popularity. 5e was doing decently for a while on a nice sensible curve, selling more copies but making less money than 4e (subscription services are a license to make money). 5e then shot into the stratosphere with [I]Critical Role[/I]. And you not only haven't proven that 4e was the least successful edition of D&D (it was making about six millions a year for WotC a year after the launch of 5e). The least successful edition of D&D was overall [I]2e[/I] - not only was it caught (by White Wolf), it literally brought down TSR. You also haven't answered the basic question: [B]What would be the point of making a game like 5e when 5e already exists? [/B] The market share of people who like games like 5e is covered by 5e. Why would they buy a different game just like it? The reason Pathfinder sold was that it took a different path to 4e and thus was able to compete by appealing to a specific audience. Making a 5e clone would have just been shooting themselves in the head. Except they [I]didn't[/I] fix LFQW. The fundamental problem is still there and is basically unfixable. They just took enough steps to mitigate it that it's nowhere near so toxic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Presentation vs design... vs philosophy
Top