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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8634888" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Yeah...I find pretty much every part of those last two sentences incorrect. It is not meaningfully streamlined (and in fact has several snarl points that I personally have had to deal with) <em>unless</em> the DM handwaves or elides things out. It is not particularly expressive, as demonstrated by the many calls from people who liked the <em>ideas</em> of 3e and PF1e but who find 5e restrictive and suffering from a dearth of options. It <em>certainly</em> isn't resilient, given the known issues with the CR system and, as stated, the <em>at the very least extremely swingy</em> difficulty of low levels.</p><p></p><p>And, as stated, the playtesting for 5e was a joke. They wasted <em>at least</em> a year and a half dithering about on ideas that weren't popular, but which were "designer's pet" things, like the Expertise Die (which Mearls all but admitted was his baby, because he loves rolling lots of dice). As another example, "Specialties" were something they tried to go all-in for...and they just didn't work and weren't popular, so they had to ditch them relatively late in the process...at which point they were now trapped, unable to implement the "Warlord Fighter" they'd promised because they had previously committed to putting all of that into a healing-focused Specialty. Yet on the flipside, they also rolled over at the slightest sign of difficulty for any idea they weren't committed to, which is what killed the Sorcerer and Warlock so thoroughly that we never even got to <em>see</em> them again in the public playtest. (This, incidentally, is a significant part of why both Sorcerer and Warlock are weaker classes--they simply <em>did not get</em> public playtesting, and their final forms were almost certainly developed over a much shorter time scale than other classes.)</p><p></p><p>Admittedly, the D&D Next playtest was <em>less</em> of a joke than things like certain PF1e public playtests, like the Gunslinger, where they legitimately outright <em>banned</em> people for giving critical feedback. (<em>Some</em> of the people who got slapped with Paizo forum bans had in fact been nasty. But others legit simply pointed out serious flaws and called for improvements...and got banned for their troubles.) The class was published pretty much unedited, and guess what? The critics were right on the money. (Specifically, the "misfire" mechanic, due to being rolled <em>for every attack roll made</em>, actually causes misfires to occur MORE often for highly-skilled Gunslingers! Though there were also other issues.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I'm gonna have to join the chorus on this one. You're just flat <em>wrong</em> that 5e was designed for that--the word you're looking for is "transparency." 4e is one of the most maximally transparent "high crunch" systems ever made. It is really clear what it expects of players and how to get those things. Instead of "natural language" that (in my experience) invites <em>arguments</em> and <em>confusion</em> (because different people understand natural terms differently....as this thread has repeatedly shown!), 4e used clear, consistent keywords and clean, exception-based design, so you could pretty much instantly figure out what things did and how they worked together.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not particularly. That's kind of the problem though; for many, it's not that they <em>want</em> to only play one game. It's that D&D <em>is</em> the one game they're even <em>able</em> to play, because <em>nobody nearby plays anything else</em>. Or, in my case, because a good 75% of all the games on offer are 5e, and about 15% are some variation of 3.X/PF1e, and it's <em>rare as hell</em> to see 4e, 13A, or a similar system I'm into. I looked for several months, even posted threads hoping maybe a DM might bite. Nothing. I eventually gave up. Hence, if I can't get the games I actually love playing, I have to do what I can to see that the play I love gets represented in games people are likely to play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I already quoted from this post earlier, but this paragraph merits mention for a couple reasons. First, it highlights an area where 3e design, in a way similar to (other, non-related) aspects of 5e design, actively works against itself in a completely unnecessary way. In 3e, as you say, if you want to do the most damage you can as a physical fighter, you must use Full Attacks, and thus you cannot move. But the system was designed around the idea that people would be moving around, able to dodge, etc. The <em>entire Monk class</em>, for example, is supposed to be built around being a lightly-armored, unarmed, highly-mobile skirmisher....which is a specialty that <em>simply sucks</em>. Likewise, the idea with the Fighter was <em>supposed</em> to be that they were incredibly customizable and powerful due to having significantly more feats....but the problem was, any good feat requires at least one mediocre or even outright <em>bad</em> feat (e.g. Spring Attack requires Mobility), sometimes <em>several</em>. And even the really good feats were rarely more than small incremental bonuses. The whole thing is just poorly-conceived.</p><p></p><p>And we can see how <em>other</em> designers, trying to fix this lumpy <em>mess</em> of a system, have used other techniques instead. The "Spheres" PF1e options from <em>Drop Dead Studios</em> are meant simultaneously as a de-powering and enforcing <em>focus</em> on magic-users (replacing Vancian casting entirely), while the Spheres of Might were specifically made to <em>increase</em> the power of martial characters. As part of this, the SoM rules almost always rely on "special attack actions," NOT full attacks. A special attack action is something you can ONLY do by taking a regular Attack action, so as to encourage players to <em>actually move around the battlefield</em> rather than parking themselves in the most stab-appropriate square and moving as little as possible. (Ironically, its hyperfocus on special attacks actually makes anything that <em>requires</em> full attacks to be significantly weakened in comparison!) The Spheres rules are significantly better-balanced than PF1e, despite allowing for some crazy combos, <em>because</em> they dispense with several key design elements that outright fight against the 3e chassis' own gameplay goals.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, again I'm going to go up to bat for this: You have excessively reduced the benefit-space already. Either searching for Advantage is a generally wasted effort, because you have to bring overwhelming benefits to get it and that's not gonna happen much, or it's a <em>pointless</em> effort, because you already have it and thus never need to do anything further. From what you've said here, you aren't actually solving the "it's the weapon of last resort being used simultaneously as the weapon of first resort" problem. You've just added a "...first resort should only come when you can't justify <em>not</em> doing something" clause.</p><p></p><p>There's still plenty of space for where you have a <em>small</em> edge that might matter, but not one so great as to be Advantage. (Personally, my preference is to have a sliding scale: something like +2, +2-and-Advantage, auto-success, mirrored for negatives. This also permits the possibility of -2+Advantage or +2+Disadvantage, allowing for "risky-but-powerful" and "restrained but reliable.") Plethoras of tiny bonuses are a problem, I don't deny that. But surely there is a space between "literally just ONE bonus" and "an absolute smorgasbord of things."</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is good to hear, since that's what I was getting out of it as well. It's a teaching tool, in game form. Like a CPR practice dummy. They aren't meant to actually <em>simulate</em> real people. They're meant as a teaching aid, so that you get practice with the basic skills just in case you ever need them for a real person who isn't breathing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Efficient and <em>effective</em> officer training. Unless you mean to claim that Free Kriegsspeil's referees would have been happy if their work was more realistic but <em>did not</em> produce effective officers? That doesn't seem to be the case, from what I'm seeing. It seems to be that there was no gain <em>in officer training</em> from the precise rules, so they ditched the unnecessary weight of (what I call) Simulation in order to more effectively Emulate the <em>experience</em> of "commanders of armies." Because that experience is what's valuable, isn't it? It doesn't matter if the skill comes from totally unreal things or extremely precise realism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8634888, member: 6790260"] Yeah...I find pretty much every part of those last two sentences incorrect. It is not meaningfully streamlined (and in fact has several snarl points that I personally have had to deal with) [I]unless[/I] the DM handwaves or elides things out. It is not particularly expressive, as demonstrated by the many calls from people who liked the [I]ideas[/I] of 3e and PF1e but who find 5e restrictive and suffering from a dearth of options. It [I]certainly[/I] isn't resilient, given the known issues with the CR system and, as stated, the [I]at the very least extremely swingy[/I] difficulty of low levels. And, as stated, the playtesting for 5e was a joke. They wasted [I]at least[/I] a year and a half dithering about on ideas that weren't popular, but which were "designer's pet" things, like the Expertise Die (which Mearls all but admitted was his baby, because he loves rolling lots of dice). As another example, "Specialties" were something they tried to go all-in for...and they just didn't work and weren't popular, so they had to ditch them relatively late in the process...at which point they were now trapped, unable to implement the "Warlord Fighter" they'd promised because they had previously committed to putting all of that into a healing-focused Specialty. Yet on the flipside, they also rolled over at the slightest sign of difficulty for any idea they weren't committed to, which is what killed the Sorcerer and Warlock so thoroughly that we never even got to [I]see[/I] them again in the public playtest. (This, incidentally, is a significant part of why both Sorcerer and Warlock are weaker classes--they simply [I]did not get[/I] public playtesting, and their final forms were almost certainly developed over a much shorter time scale than other classes.) Admittedly, the D&D Next playtest was [I]less[/I] of a joke than things like certain PF1e public playtests, like the Gunslinger, where they legitimately outright [I]banned[/I] people for giving critical feedback. ([I]Some[/I] of the people who got slapped with Paizo forum bans had in fact been nasty. But others legit simply pointed out serious flaws and called for improvements...and got banned for their troubles.) The class was published pretty much unedited, and guess what? The critics were right on the money. (Specifically, the "misfire" mechanic, due to being rolled [I]for every attack roll made[/I], actually causes misfires to occur MORE often for highly-skilled Gunslingers! Though there were also other issues.) Yeah, I'm gonna have to join the chorus on this one. You're just flat [I]wrong[/I] that 5e was designed for that--the word you're looking for is "transparency." 4e is one of the most maximally transparent "high crunch" systems ever made. It is really clear what it expects of players and how to get those things. Instead of "natural language" that (in my experience) invites [I]arguments[/I] and [I]confusion[/I] (because different people understand natural terms differently....as this thread has repeatedly shown!), 4e used clear, consistent keywords and clean, exception-based design, so you could pretty much instantly figure out what things did and how they worked together. Not particularly. That's kind of the problem though; for many, it's not that they [I]want[/I] to only play one game. It's that D&D [I]is[/I] the one game they're even [I]able[/I] to play, because [I]nobody nearby plays anything else[/I]. Or, in my case, because a good 75% of all the games on offer are 5e, and about 15% are some variation of 3.X/PF1e, and it's [I]rare as hell[/I] to see 4e, 13A, or a similar system I'm into. I looked for several months, even posted threads hoping maybe a DM might bite. Nothing. I eventually gave up. Hence, if I can't get the games I actually love playing, I have to do what I can to see that the play I love gets represented in games people are likely to play. I already quoted from this post earlier, but this paragraph merits mention for a couple reasons. First, it highlights an area where 3e design, in a way similar to (other, non-related) aspects of 5e design, actively works against itself in a completely unnecessary way. In 3e, as you say, if you want to do the most damage you can as a physical fighter, you must use Full Attacks, and thus you cannot move. But the system was designed around the idea that people would be moving around, able to dodge, etc. The [I]entire Monk class[/I], for example, is supposed to be built around being a lightly-armored, unarmed, highly-mobile skirmisher....which is a specialty that [I]simply sucks[/I]. Likewise, the idea with the Fighter was [I]supposed[/I] to be that they were incredibly customizable and powerful due to having significantly more feats....but the problem was, any good feat requires at least one mediocre or even outright [I]bad[/I] feat (e.g. Spring Attack requires Mobility), sometimes [I]several[/I]. And even the really good feats were rarely more than small incremental bonuses. The whole thing is just poorly-conceived. And we can see how [I]other[/I] designers, trying to fix this lumpy [I]mess[/I] of a system, have used other techniques instead. The "Spheres" PF1e options from [I]Drop Dead Studios[/I] are meant simultaneously as a de-powering and enforcing [I]focus[/I] on magic-users (replacing Vancian casting entirely), while the Spheres of Might were specifically made to [I]increase[/I] the power of martial characters. As part of this, the SoM rules almost always rely on "special attack actions," NOT full attacks. A special attack action is something you can ONLY do by taking a regular Attack action, so as to encourage players to [I]actually move around the battlefield[/I] rather than parking themselves in the most stab-appropriate square and moving as little as possible. (Ironically, its hyperfocus on special attacks actually makes anything that [I]requires[/I] full attacks to be significantly weakened in comparison!) The Spheres rules are significantly better-balanced than PF1e, despite allowing for some crazy combos, [I]because[/I] they dispense with several key design elements that outright fight against the 3e chassis' own gameplay goals. Yeah, again I'm going to go up to bat for this: You have excessively reduced the benefit-space already. Either searching for Advantage is a generally wasted effort, because you have to bring overwhelming benefits to get it and that's not gonna happen much, or it's a [I]pointless[/I] effort, because you already have it and thus never need to do anything further. From what you've said here, you aren't actually solving the "it's the weapon of last resort being used simultaneously as the weapon of first resort" problem. You've just added a "...first resort should only come when you can't justify [I]not[/I] doing something" clause. There's still plenty of space for where you have a [I]small[/I] edge that might matter, but not one so great as to be Advantage. (Personally, my preference is to have a sliding scale: something like +2, +2-and-Advantage, auto-success, mirrored for negatives. This also permits the possibility of -2+Advantage or +2+Disadvantage, allowing for "risky-but-powerful" and "restrained but reliable.") Plethoras of tiny bonuses are a problem, I don't deny that. But surely there is a space between "literally just ONE bonus" and "an absolute smorgasbord of things." This is good to hear, since that's what I was getting out of it as well. It's a teaching tool, in game form. Like a CPR practice dummy. They aren't meant to actually [I]simulate[/I] real people. They're meant as a teaching aid, so that you get practice with the basic skills just in case you ever need them for a real person who isn't breathing. Efficient and [I]effective[/I] officer training. Unless you mean to claim that Free Kriegsspeil's referees would have been happy if their work was more realistic but [I]did not[/I] produce effective officers? That doesn't seem to be the case, from what I'm seeing. It seems to be that there was no gain [I]in officer training[/I] from the precise rules, so they ditched the unnecessary weight of (what I call) Simulation in order to more effectively Emulate the [I]experience[/I] of "commanders of armies." Because that experience is what's valuable, isn't it? It doesn't matter if the skill comes from totally unreal things or extremely precise realism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top