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
Warlock and Repelling Blast
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="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6772775" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>[MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION]: I'm not on Twitter.</p><p></p><p>From Tweets to JC that have been posted on this forum, and the replies given, it is obvious that Twitter is an ineffective means of asking a complex question or receiving a complex answer.</p><p></p><p>To lay out a case, like I did in my last post, takes a lot more than 140 characters (or whatever the limit is; are 'spaces' 'characters'?). It would also take more than 140 characters to properly answer all the points of a given case. Twitter is not the place to do that. I've seen some of his replies leaving us just as divided as we were before his answer.</p><p></p><p>The best place to explore these questions is one where we have space to develop our point, and even to debate points back and forth. Like...this forum, for example.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>If JC were a poster here, he could explain his reasoning and even defend it against counter arguments. To be fair, he may not want to do that!</p><p></p><p>There is a possibility that hasn't been considered in this thread so far, but it's going to take more than 140 characters to explain it.</p><p></p><p>In game design there are two desired outcomes: realism and playability. The trouble is that these two aims frequently conflict. The more realistic the rule, the more complex (and therefore less playable) it needs to be. The more playable (and thus simple), the less realistic and less satisfying. Tossing a coin is very 'playable', but how much fun would it be for the DM to say, "Heads you win the campaign, tails you lose!"</p><p></p><p>So, balance between the two must be sought. Exactly where the balance lies varies from system to system. One of the reasons I disliked 4E was that it seemed as though whenever there was a question of whether to solve a problem realistically but with complexity, or with playability but totally unrealistically, they chose the latter.</p><p></p><p>We know of at least one rule in 5E which is totally unrealistic and impossible. I'm not just talking about 'armour makes you harder to hit', I'm talking totally bonkers: non-lethal damage.</p><p></p><p>In previous editions there have been various attempts to model 'subdual damage', having a separate track of 'non-lethal damage' running alongside regular hit points, etc. 5E has made it very simple: ALL damage is lethal, but if you kill a baddy with a melee weapon, you can <strong>retro-actively</strong> declare that the last hit wasn't lethal after all! How do we feel about that? I feel that it's totally unrealistic....but, y'know what? I'm actually okay with this bit of playability trumping this bit of unreality.</p><p></p><p>We know that this is the rule; there is no debate. The RAW is clear and unambiguous.</p><p></p><p>The reason I bring this up is that JC, in his infinite wisdom, <strong>may</strong> be doing a similar thing with instantaneous spells! He may very well intend casters of <em>scorching ray</em> to shoot the rays consecutively, having time to see the results of each ray before deciding who to target with the next, even though the spell is 'instantaneous'. To do so, he would have to make a conscious and deliberate change to the same spell which specified 'all bolts must be aimed...and fired simultaneously'. He could not make such a decision based on realism (because of what 'instantaneous' means), but he <em>could</em>, in theory at least, make an unrealistic decision for the sake of playability.</p><p></p><p>Was that more than 140 characters?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 6772775, member: 6799649"] [MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION]: I'm not on Twitter. From Tweets to JC that have been posted on this forum, and the replies given, it is obvious that Twitter is an ineffective means of asking a complex question or receiving a complex answer. To lay out a case, like I did in my last post, takes a lot more than 140 characters (or whatever the limit is; are 'spaces' 'characters'?). It would also take more than 140 characters to properly answer all the points of a given case. Twitter is not the place to do that. I've seen some of his replies leaving us just as divided as we were before his answer. The best place to explore these questions is one where we have space to develop our point, and even to debate points back and forth. Like...this forum, for example.:) If JC were a poster here, he could explain his reasoning and even defend it against counter arguments. To be fair, he may not want to do that! There is a possibility that hasn't been considered in this thread so far, but it's going to take more than 140 characters to explain it. In game design there are two desired outcomes: realism and playability. The trouble is that these two aims frequently conflict. The more realistic the rule, the more complex (and therefore less playable) it needs to be. The more playable (and thus simple), the less realistic and less satisfying. Tossing a coin is very 'playable', but how much fun would it be for the DM to say, "Heads you win the campaign, tails you lose!" So, balance between the two must be sought. Exactly where the balance lies varies from system to system. One of the reasons I disliked 4E was that it seemed as though whenever there was a question of whether to solve a problem realistically but with complexity, or with playability but totally unrealistically, they chose the latter. We know of at least one rule in 5E which is totally unrealistic and impossible. I'm not just talking about 'armour makes you harder to hit', I'm talking totally bonkers: non-lethal damage. In previous editions there have been various attempts to model 'subdual damage', having a separate track of 'non-lethal damage' running alongside regular hit points, etc. 5E has made it very simple: ALL damage is lethal, but if you kill a baddy with a melee weapon, you can [b]retro-actively[/b] declare that the last hit wasn't lethal after all! How do we feel about that? I feel that it's totally unrealistic....but, y'know what? I'm actually okay with this bit of playability trumping this bit of unreality. We know that this is the rule; there is no debate. The RAW is clear and unambiguous. The reason I bring this up is that JC, in his infinite wisdom, [b]may[/b] be doing a similar thing with instantaneous spells! He may very well intend casters of [I]scorching ray[/I] to shoot the rays consecutively, having time to see the results of each ray before deciding who to target with the next, even though the spell is 'instantaneous'. To do so, he would have to make a conscious and deliberate change to the same spell which specified 'all bolts must be aimed...and fired simultaneously'. He could not make such a decision based on realism (because of what 'instantaneous' means), but he [I]could[/I], in theory at least, make an unrealistic decision for the sake of playability. Was that more than 140 characters? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlock and Repelling Blast
Top