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
What is most important to you for 5e?
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: 5989946" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Where we are clashing, as [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has pointed out is between process based and results based rather than by stance.</p><p> </p><p>Process based: You want every decision you take to feel exactly like one your character would and whether or not this means your character behaves the way he should overall is somewhat irrelevant.</p><p> </p><p>Results based: I want my character to behave like the character I want to play, and if this means fudging the process to make up for the fact that game rules are a fudged process then I don't see the problem.</p><p> </p><p>To resolve the clash we need some <em>really good </em>processes. Processes that lead to the right results (which is where 3.X falls over with any system mastery).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Pawn stance is at its strongest in Tomb of Horrors but generally is how to tackle a really old school dungeon. It takes the attitude "This PC is my pawn in the game and I am playing to win. The dungeon is the enemy and I'm going to outsmart it and outwit it and use whatever I can. My pawn provides me with certain tools to help in this. And the referee (yes they were called that) is there to run the opposition and to adjudicate."</p><p></p><p>This is the root of D&D. This is how it was played at Gygax's table. And this is what brown box, white box, and even 1e were about.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No it wasn't. 2e significantly changed the default stance of the game, deprecating pawn stance in favour of actor stance (and to a lesser extent director stance).</p><p> </p><p>The furthest reaching change was XP for GP. Which changed 1e from a game about dungeoncrawling and outwitting monsters. Instead you gained XP for casting spells as a wizard or picking locks as a thief, etc. This is a way of rewarding your actor (and director) stance - you gain XP for repeating the actions that you practice a lot.</p><p> </p><p>The next furthest reaching change was the raising of racial level limits to the point they rendered them almost irrelevant. In the pawn stance gamist game that 1e was written to be, the level limits had a purpose. They meant that you could gain a lot of early power by taking a multiclassed non-human but paid for it by being unable to enter the endgame (L10+). In 2e on the other hand the level limits were raised to the point that they were irrelevant (L12-15). This again moved the game away from one encouraging pawn stance where the powerful low level pieces had significant drawbacks to other stances, with actor stance being an obvious winner.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>From red box on it <em>enabled</em> your playstyle. Big difference. 2e supported it, 1e supported pawn stance. 3.X supported process driven play at the expense of the results but continued to enable actor stance.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You have explicitely said that in order to support yours you need to make sure there is nothing anyone has that resembles an encounter power. That the very existance of such is incompatable with your immersion.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I've offered something based on the Crusader mechanic from the Bo9S. That would have the fudge factor I want to bring the game into line with my character's expected behaviour. You haven't said why this is unacceptable (I've said the problems with your proposed fixes - mostly that being spamtastic both disappoints my gamist side and breaks my results oriented actor stance).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Complete nonsense. It doesn't support yours. There is a wide range of playstyles that it does support. Actor based, director based, pawn based*. Tactical playing to win rather than to dominate (something that 3.X ruined).</p><p> </p><p>Hell, you can even have your immersive actors as long as you are prepared to play one of the many forms of caster. And 4e has a <em>lot</em> of them. If every single encounter and daily power you have is a spell then your entire class is associated (or do you seriously believe you can't re-prepare some spells on a five minute rest because it's against the Laws of Magic?)</p><p> </p><p>* Pawn based but not <em>expendable</em> <em>pawn</em> based, which classic D&D was. With Knuckles the 23rd as a PC. Or Melf the Male Elf and "medium" Rary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5989946, member: 87792"] Where we are clashing, as [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has pointed out is between process based and results based rather than by stance. Process based: You want every decision you take to feel exactly like one your character would and whether or not this means your character behaves the way he should overall is somewhat irrelevant. Results based: I want my character to behave like the character I want to play, and if this means fudging the process to make up for the fact that game rules are a fudged process then I don't see the problem. To resolve the clash we need some [I]really good [/I]processes. Processes that lead to the right results (which is where 3.X falls over with any system mastery). Pawn stance is at its strongest in Tomb of Horrors but generally is how to tackle a really old school dungeon. It takes the attitude "This PC is my pawn in the game and I am playing to win. The dungeon is the enemy and I'm going to outsmart it and outwit it and use whatever I can. My pawn provides me with certain tools to help in this. And the referee (yes they were called that) is there to run the opposition and to adjudicate." This is the root of D&D. This is how it was played at Gygax's table. And this is what brown box, white box, and even 1e were about. No it wasn't. 2e significantly changed the default stance of the game, deprecating pawn stance in favour of actor stance (and to a lesser extent director stance). The furthest reaching change was XP for GP. Which changed 1e from a game about dungeoncrawling and outwitting monsters. Instead you gained XP for casting spells as a wizard or picking locks as a thief, etc. This is a way of rewarding your actor (and director) stance - you gain XP for repeating the actions that you practice a lot. The next furthest reaching change was the raising of racial level limits to the point they rendered them almost irrelevant. In the pawn stance gamist game that 1e was written to be, the level limits had a purpose. They meant that you could gain a lot of early power by taking a multiclassed non-human but paid for it by being unable to enter the endgame (L10+). In 2e on the other hand the level limits were raised to the point that they were irrelevant (L12-15). This again moved the game away from one encouraging pawn stance where the powerful low level pieces had significant drawbacks to other stances, with actor stance being an obvious winner. From red box on it [I]enabled[/I] your playstyle. Big difference. 2e supported it, 1e supported pawn stance. 3.X supported process driven play at the expense of the results but continued to enable actor stance. You have explicitely said that in order to support yours you need to make sure there is nothing anyone has that resembles an encounter power. That the very existance of such is incompatable with your immersion. I've offered something based on the Crusader mechanic from the Bo9S. That would have the fudge factor I want to bring the game into line with my character's expected behaviour. You haven't said why this is unacceptable (I've said the problems with your proposed fixes - mostly that being spamtastic both disappoints my gamist side and breaks my results oriented actor stance). Complete nonsense. It doesn't support yours. There is a wide range of playstyles that it does support. Actor based, director based, pawn based*. Tactical playing to win rather than to dominate (something that 3.X ruined). Hell, you can even have your immersive actors as long as you are prepared to play one of the many forms of caster. And 4e has a [I]lot[/I] of them. If every single encounter and daily power you have is a spell then your entire class is associated (or do you seriously believe you can't re-prepare some spells on a five minute rest because it's against the Laws of Magic?) * Pawn based but not [I]expendable[/I] [I]pawn[/I] based, which classic D&D was. With Knuckles the 23rd as a PC. Or Melf the Male Elf and "medium" Rary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is most important to you for 5e?
Top