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
*Dungeons & Dragons
The D&D Advantage- The Campaign
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: 8429359" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I'm saying, a business which <em>never</em> innovates in any way is dead--and that, as you note, innovation is not, in and of itself, an advantage. Successful innovation is required merely to <em>survive</em> in business. Sooner or later, if you don't innovate, you'll be outcompeted by those who did.</p><p></p><p>A thing you <em>have</em> to do, and which is not guaranteed to work even if you do it, doesn't make sense as an "advantage." It's a <em>prerequisite</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>...yes. I was literally saying that you were conflating the two.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Insufficient data to make any determination on that front--again, because "success" is driven by an enormous number of factors. If D&D had been beaten to the RPG punch by a freeform-build game, we could easily live in a world where class-based systems are rare and do-it-yourself construction had always been the more common (and more successful) method.</p><p></p><p>And yes, some choice is desirable. I, personally, find classless games daunting, because I get lost in all the choices and can't make a decision. By that same token, I have found that there are a lot of people who strain against the restrictions of class-based design, even when they continue to play such games to the exclusion of anything else. Again, "success" and "what players want" are not strictly the same thing, so it's actually pretty unhelpful to argue "well, X pattern is historically more prevalent, therefore X pattern is <em>better</em>." The vast majority of humans who ever lived were illiterate, but I don't think either of us would argue that that's superior to literacy!</p><p></p><p>Regardless, the OP's point was that two key things--"the campaign" and (paraphrasing) "the level-up experience"--are responsible for D&D's success. You then looped in subclasses <em>as a demonstration of</em> this success. That's really weird, because subclasses are neither part of "the level-up experience" (they provide different options when you <em>do</em> level up, but they don't actually affect <em>whether</em> you get options for levelling up, which the OP repeatedly stressed as the key factor) nor part of "the campaign" (they may have setting implications, but they have no effect on world continuity or the persistent existence of the character past a single play session).</p><p></p><p>You haven't demonstrated how subclasses, feats, races, or a variety of other things have any similarity whatsoever to "the campaign" or "the level-up experience," <em>other than</em> being innovations. Since as I said innovation is <em>required</em> to survive, that's not an advantage in and of itself, it's a prerequisite. I think all these things are good (to a point) but I don't see how they have more than superficial similarity to the two key points the OP made. I certainly don't see how any of them emphasizes that "the campaign" and "the level-up experience" remain <em>active</em> advantages, rather than merely historical ones.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, no question. I'm a huge advocate for well-balanced games. It's why it infuriates me so much to see people handwave serious problems, like short-rest classes falling behind long-rest ones. Problems which were foreseen all the way back in the D&D Next playtest and dismissed as irrelevant...only to be later recognized <em>by the designers themselves</em> as an actual problem. Likewise, people noted the serious weakness of dragonborn relative to other races, particularly elves and dwarves, even before official launch.</p><p></p><p>This is why I advocate so strongly for pursuing really rigorous balance <em>long</em> before publication. Such balance means you don't <em>need</em> to make so many post-hoc changes. 4e was pretty good at this, but even it had some stumbles (skill DCs, Skill Challenge rules, stealth, a couple other things) despite being (in)famous for its balance.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then, to the best of my knowledge, you are an exception, not the overall pattern. I have seen many, many people who think artificers and monks <em>could not ever</em> have a place in D&D, and that it is borderline offensive to even <em>try</em> to include them, in any way, under any circumstances, even if they can be entirely ignored and not present at specific tables if the DM so desires. We saw <em>exactly</em> the same problem with the Warlord, where you had people doggedly insisting that it would <em>ruin D&D</em> to permit martial healing etc. in 5e, even though they've always had the ability to just ignore classes and mechanics they don't care for.</p><p></p><p></p><p>...aren't they both <em>already</em> pastiches, or at least extremely heavy on the "borrowing" from other places? Eberron borrows extremely heavily from pulp action comics, Indiana Jones, astrology, Victorian-era fiction, etc. Faerun <em>openly copies</em> literal real-world cultures (e.g. the Mulhorandi pantheon is <em>literally</em> Egyptian, while the Untheric pantheon is <em>literally</em> Mesopotamian), so even if Eberron isn't a true pastiche, the Forgotten Realms absolutely are--particularly when you start accounting for the continental areas that openly invoke different cultural tropes, like Al-Qadim being a pastiche of the myths and legends of Golden Age Islam, or Maztica being a pastiche of the Americas around the time of the despoiling Conquistadors.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8429359, member: 6790260"] I'm saying, a business which [I]never[/I] innovates in any way is dead--and that, as you note, innovation is not, in and of itself, an advantage. Successful innovation is required merely to [I]survive[/I] in business. Sooner or later, if you don't innovate, you'll be outcompeted by those who did. A thing you [I]have[/I] to do, and which is not guaranteed to work even if you do it, doesn't make sense as an "advantage." It's a [I]prerequisite[/I]. ...yes. I was literally saying that you were conflating the two. Insufficient data to make any determination on that front--again, because "success" is driven by an enormous number of factors. If D&D had been beaten to the RPG punch by a freeform-build game, we could easily live in a world where class-based systems are rare and do-it-yourself construction had always been the more common (and more successful) method. And yes, some choice is desirable. I, personally, find classless games daunting, because I get lost in all the choices and can't make a decision. By that same token, I have found that there are a lot of people who strain against the restrictions of class-based design, even when they continue to play such games to the exclusion of anything else. Again, "success" and "what players want" are not strictly the same thing, so it's actually pretty unhelpful to argue "well, X pattern is historically more prevalent, therefore X pattern is [I]better[/I]." The vast majority of humans who ever lived were illiterate, but I don't think either of us would argue that that's superior to literacy! Regardless, the OP's point was that two key things--"the campaign" and (paraphrasing) "the level-up experience"--are responsible for D&D's success. You then looped in subclasses [I]as a demonstration of[/I] this success. That's really weird, because subclasses are neither part of "the level-up experience" (they provide different options when you [I]do[/I] level up, but they don't actually affect [I]whether[/I] you get options for levelling up, which the OP repeatedly stressed as the key factor) nor part of "the campaign" (they may have setting implications, but they have no effect on world continuity or the persistent existence of the character past a single play session). You haven't demonstrated how subclasses, feats, races, or a variety of other things have any similarity whatsoever to "the campaign" or "the level-up experience," [I]other than[/I] being innovations. Since as I said innovation is [I]required[/I] to survive, that's not an advantage in and of itself, it's a prerequisite. I think all these things are good (to a point) but I don't see how they have more than superficial similarity to the two key points the OP made. I certainly don't see how any of them emphasizes that "the campaign" and "the level-up experience" remain [I]active[/I] advantages, rather than merely historical ones. Oh, no question. I'm a huge advocate for well-balanced games. It's why it infuriates me so much to see people handwave serious problems, like short-rest classes falling behind long-rest ones. Problems which were foreseen all the way back in the D&D Next playtest and dismissed as irrelevant...only to be later recognized [I]by the designers themselves[/I] as an actual problem. Likewise, people noted the serious weakness of dragonborn relative to other races, particularly elves and dwarves, even before official launch. This is why I advocate so strongly for pursuing really rigorous balance [I]long[/I] before publication. Such balance means you don't [I]need[/I] to make so many post-hoc changes. 4e was pretty good at this, but even it had some stumbles (skill DCs, Skill Challenge rules, stealth, a couple other things) despite being (in)famous for its balance. Then, to the best of my knowledge, you are an exception, not the overall pattern. I have seen many, many people who think artificers and monks [I]could not ever[/I] have a place in D&D, and that it is borderline offensive to even [I]try[/I] to include them, in any way, under any circumstances, even if they can be entirely ignored and not present at specific tables if the DM so desires. We saw [I]exactly[/I] the same problem with the Warlord, where you had people doggedly insisting that it would [I]ruin D&D[/I] to permit martial healing etc. in 5e, even though they've always had the ability to just ignore classes and mechanics they don't care for. ...aren't they both [I]already[/I] pastiches, or at least extremely heavy on the "borrowing" from other places? Eberron borrows extremely heavily from pulp action comics, Indiana Jones, astrology, Victorian-era fiction, etc. Faerun [I]openly copies[/I] literal real-world cultures (e.g. the Mulhorandi pantheon is [I]literally[/I] Egyptian, while the Untheric pantheon is [I]literally[/I] Mesopotamian), so even if Eberron isn't a true pastiche, the Forgotten Realms absolutely are--particularly when you start accounting for the continental areas that openly invoke different cultural tropes, like Al-Qadim being a pastiche of the myths and legends of Golden Age Islam, or Maztica being a pastiche of the Americas around the time of the despoiling Conquistadors. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The D&D Advantage- The Campaign
Top